"(00:36) Childhood and family Vidya Athreya discusses her childhood and family. She was born in Mangalore which was her mother's native place; but grew up in Bombay, and lived there till she was 21 years old. Their family lived in a row house. She recounts several examples of her parents' love for animals, and recalls growing up surrounded by animals. Her mother was fond of cats and they had 5-6 cats around the house. They also used to stay in a one-bedroom flat in Chembur while her father worked in a factory, and he rescued a bulbul that lived with them in the house. The family spent 2 months a year in Mangalore in a house surrounded by cats, dogs and birds.

Athreya has one sister who was born when she was 11; they became closer when she was older; and Athreya says she grew up as a single kid with a lot of friends. Her mother wanted to be a doctor but was not allowed to work; Athreya considers her the 'brightest woman' she knows.

Athreya was schooled in a convent called St. Antony's High School. She reflects on aspects of school life, and says she did not like that it was a girls' school because children should be allowed to intermingle with everybody. She recalls that she went to a boarding school in Bangalore in 8th grade, but returned because she did not enjoy the experience. She was taught in English. She did her 11th and 12th in 'SIES' [South Indian Education Society College Of Arts, Science & Commerce] and graduated from another college.

(06:54) Engaging with nature Athreya discusses her engagement with nature in childhood. There were no opportunities to engage with nature at school, but she remembers finding and taking home some stray puppies caught in the rain in 6th grade; her father worried that their mother was probably nearby, and she recalls driving through the night in the rain to leave them back. She says that her love for animals came from her family rather than peers.

Athreya states that her first visit to a forest was a trip to Anamalai Tiger Reserve in college. She had joined the Nature Club at Ruia College [Ramnarain Ruia Autonomous College of Science and Arts] not out of a particular interest in nature, but only as an activity; she says it was on the trip to Anamalai that she decided this is what she wants to pursue in life. This trip in her memory was in 1986/1987.

Athreya also further delves into her family's relationship with animals. They didn't go to zoos growing up because they did not like seeing animals in captivity. She points out that normal families don't separate wild and domestic animals like biologists do. She remembered magpie robins, kingfishers, mongoose, and civet cats in her grandfather's house; the distinction between domestic and wild animals came after the nature club. Athreya relates reading a lot as a child, but not about wildlife. She became a 'wildlife person' after 'Topslip' [Anaimalai Reserve] – she used to go to Sanjay Gandhi National Park, BNHS [Bombay Natural History Society] and watched NatGeo; she had some aspirations of being a veterinarian but says she can't handle cutting or harming animals.

(13:01) College and Career Athreya says she chose arts for 11th and 12th out of rebellion because her parents wanted her to take Science; she had Psychology, Statistics and Mathematics as subjects; she did her BA [Bachelor of Arts] in Math because she enjoyed the subject, and could not switch back to science after having taken arts which she did not enjoy. She clarifies that she wanted to be a veterinarian before Anaimalai, as it was the only profession she knew of to work with animals. She was interested in science and math growing up and did well in both.

Athreya also states that her family was always financially stable – not rich but never feared not having money.

She had initially wanted to do an MA in Math and had enrolled in Bombay University, but she wanted to get married and her parents were opposed; so she says that her decisions were due more to personal reasons. She got married in 1989 at 21 years of age. Her husband Ramana [Ramana Athreya, birdwatcher and astronomer at IISER, Pune] was supportive of a career in wildlife because he is a naturalist and wildlifer. Athreya describes meeting Sathya Kumar at Kedarnath on a trek and finding out from him about the Salim Ali School in Pondicherry [Salim Ali School of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, University of Pondicherry] that allowed students with a BA to join the Wildlife program; she applied and was selected into the program which marked her entry into the field. There was a break between her Bachelor's degree and Master's degree; she finished her BA in 1988 and started her Master's in 1991.

(20:10) MSc in Ecology, University of Pondicherry; Gender in conservation; Marriage Athreya states that this was her first time away from home. She describes her experience in Pondicherry; recalls some conflict between the faculty and says that she got good exposure to different kinds of people. Athreya did her thesis with Priya Davidar who also took a course on reviewing scientific literature – she says this course 'stuck with her' and taught her to be very critical of experts, which is what science should be like, according to her. She describes herself as having always been 'irreverent' - she describes fighting with her father as the 'root of dissent', and living in Bombay and Davidar's course made her even more so. She describes Davidar as being 'hands-off' as a Master's adviser but giving good advice; her presence was also impactful as a woman in a very chauvinistic world.

There were two other women in Athreya's batch. Athreya states that women in her time had to fight to be in the field; she fought with her family due to their concerns about the dangers of wild animals and moreover travelling alone. Athreya describes a 'terrible mismatch' between men and women in the course: the women were from cities and the men were not, and Athreya also suggests that many of the men at the time got into the field because they had chosen Biology and did not get into the field of Medicine, and few were really interested in the field itself. Therefore women were 'strong-headed' and liberal. Athreya says she is no longer in contact with her classmates because she prefers solitude, but still thinks of them.

She also recalls that she did not have to ask her parents about her choice of Master's because she was married and outside their influence. Her husband Ramana was supportive – they lived apart for nearly a decade as she spent two years in Pondicherry and three years at WII [WIldlife Institute of India]; then she went abroad to a different country for a PhD where she ended up doing a Masters. Athreya says it was because they married young and were still students, and says that her husband's support meant that she 'didn't have to fight anymore'. After their marriage she moved from Bombay to Bangalore for a year, then to Ooty for six months and finally to Pune where her husband did his PhD. Ramana Athreya was an astrophysicist at IISER at the time of the interview with a part position in biology and physics; he is a naturalist and birdwatcher and Athreya mentions that he discovered a new bird species in Arunachal.

[00:28:12 - 00:28:17 – Restricted access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in]

(28:32) Interest in conservation - time at Pondicherry and WII Athreya says she used to be a 'hardcore biologist' interested mostly in the ecology of wild species. Her interest in conservation came later on in her career; she started as a naturalist and biologist but was always interested in interactions between species. At Pondicherry she recalls doing a project on spiders in the jatropha flowers. Her Master's thesis was on two topics: frugivory in strangler figs and host preference in strangler figs. But she also says she had always wanted to save forests and little animals, recalling an injured crow she had rescued - "any animal would have been worthy of attention".

She was offered a Research Assistant position by Ravi Chellam in a survey for an alternate home for lions – Sathya Kumar had known she was interested in cats and told her about it – so she worked at WII for 2 years. She went on to do a six month long survey on Clouded leopards in North East India, also at WII; she had hoped to do her PhD there but left because of the chauvinistic atmosphere. Even at this stage, she says, she was not thinking about conservation. Athreya posits that it is common for wildlife biologists to only look at their species; she says that while it is alright for the purpose of research, she finds it 'unfair' when biologists who do it claim ecological relevance in their research projects.

(31:57) Work with strangler figs; studying abroad Athreya discusses her Master's work with strangler figs. When she went to Topslip she had seen the strangler figs – she mentions that they are hemiepiphytes that belong to a subgenre of the figs and start out life growing on another tree. Walking around in Karian Shola she used to see these trees in other trees that sometimes became large enough to encircle the host tree and lead to its death.

(32:41-32:56; 33:11-33:22) Interruption

At the time her advisor Priya was dealing with plant animal interactions which was why she chose to do a study of frugivory in birds that came to the trees, but the choice of strangler figs was her own.

Athreya says she applied abroad because she did not like the work atmosphere at WII where she had initially gone to work towards a PhD. Despite her interest in cats, she applied for a Master's to work on strangler figs because she had already published a paper on strangler figs, and was equally interested in them. Athreya received an offer that waived her tuition and provided a stipend, to work under an ecologist studying strangler figs in Panama, which led to her accepting the opportunity.

Athreya was in Iowa for two years, but came back with another Master's instead of a PhD because she did not enjoy living there. She did field work in Panama on strangler figs while working with John Mason in the USA. She had chosen Mason because he had an opening and the University's offer was better than other places to which she had applied given that she could not afford to pay to go to the US. She also recollects that Mason had published a paper in Nature and was a young and rising faculty member.

(36:36) Working at WII Athreya went to WII immediately after her Masters in Pondicherry. She describes her interest in cats from a young age to the point that she was always surrounded by them; she says that domestic cats are not very different from wild cats as they do not rely on humans for food or shelter. Given her interest, she had let it be known to people at the time that she wanted to work with wild cats, especially clouded leopards in Northeast India which is why she did the survey, hoping to follow up with a PhD. However, she recounts that she couldn't work at WII as a junior scientist as she was 'disillusioned' with her colleagues and the 'chauvinism ran really deep' – Athreya reflects at this point that she did what she wanted to do all her life, even if that meant making mistakes, and says that it was all part of life.

Athreya further discusses chauvinism at WII. She says that she did not encounter chauvinism enough to have it bother her in Bombay and that the city made her who she is. However at WII she found that senior faculty were very 'patriarchal'. Comparing the same to the USA she asserts that the boundaries between professional and personal behaviour were better maintained there. She refrains from making a general statement about the culture at WII and clarifies that she did not like working with the people she worked with.

(42:10) Fieldwork at Kuno and in the North East Athreya did fieldwork in the Kuno relocation project under Ravi Chellam where she worked in a team of 3; she describes driving to do faunal and floral surveys to assess sites for reintroduction of lions across 3 sites, of which she names Kuno-Palpur and Sitamata. Athreya enjoyed the tour, except for the heat.

She moved on to do an independent survey of clouded leopards – where she carried 110 kg of equipment from Delhi to Guwahati during the Assam insurgency. Athreya describes her trip to Arunachal – even though she was advised against going she found it to be a beautiful place and enjoyed meeting local people; she stayed in Arunachal and walked from the border with Burma through the Namdapha tiger reserve with a few tribal people, a 150 km walk that she completed in 10 days. She also went to Meghalaya and Western Arunachal; did not see many clouded leopards, but remembers seeing canines, a pet in Meghalaya and skin on the wall in Western Arunachal. She says that during her Masters in Karian Shola and fieldwork in Kuno she enjoyed the solitude of being out in the field but also her interactions with local people which granted her 'different perspectives' into their lives and created lasting relationships.

[43:09-43:14 – Restricted access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in]

(46:37) Choosing between cats and strangler figs for her PhD Athreya says that her CV was stronger in strangler figs because she had a published paper and a good recommendation from Davidar, and was unwilling to reach out to WII for the same. As she was as interested in strangler figs and had a stronger application profile, she chose to work with figs rather than cats in the US.

Athreya also posits that 'cats are a terribly contested world' and that it is difficult to get to work with cats without support within the field; she found this to be especially true as a woman in a field dominated by men. Further, she was advised by senior faculty that publication helped with admissions.

(48:53) Work in Panama; leaving the US Athreya worked in Panama for six months while at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute [STRI]. She describes her time there as good – she got a boating license and met Panamanians and others at STRI at the Barro Colorado island. It was her first time living outside the country, at 29 years of age.

She discusses several reasons for not finishing a PhD at the time: her husband was in South America for his postdoc; in the meantime she had trouble living in the US where it could be quite debilitatingly lonely; she also missed the 'chaos and humanity' of India compared to Iowa which was much more isolated. When her Professor was shifting to another University in Iowa, she chose to come back to India instead of moving with him. She joined her husband in Chile.

Athreya was in Chile for 3 years where she had her daughter; they came back to India in 2001 [Archivists's note: She corrects this date to 2002], to a radio telescope in a rural area 75 km from Pune where her husband was joining as faculty [Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope (GMRT), Junnar]. While in Chile she had tried to work on the Andean cat but could not do so; when she became a parent she consciously stepped away from work for 5 years.

(53:03) Interest in leopards and conservation; Project Waghoba Her interest in leopards began in 2003, after moving to Junnar. Athreya recollects that even in Chile in 2001-02, faculty from [GMRT} had been reaching out to them about a series of leopard attacks on humans; she was familiar to them because of her talk at the institute after her clouded leopard survey. At the time she had given them the contact information of a friend but did not directly intervene because she was busy with her daughter.

She says that in 2002, Sanjay Thakur came up to her in Pune requesting her help with the Junnar situation; she offered to help with managing the project if Thakur could do fieldwork; recalls that she started getting interested over the phone. They also got in touch with Sujoy Chaudhuri who was interested in GIS; and the veterinarian Anirudhha Belsare. By the time she moved to Junnar in 2003 attacks had waned but Athreya says as she was living in the conflict zone the project began. Athreya describes the 'unusual conflict' in Junnar: leopards were being trapped in unexpected places despite living in a human dominated landscape; there were 50 attacks each year for 2 years, from 3-4 attacks before; and there were several 'strange' cases – she cites the example of stories of leopards attacking children sleeping between parents.

Athreya discusses the operation of the Project independently, without affiliation to an NGO. She recalls that they used the letterhead of Chaudhuri's NGO. She also mentions her now-defunct NGO set up with Ramana Athreya called Kaati Trust, when he started working in the North East. She joined CWS [Centre for Wildlife Studies] in 2007 as a PhD scholar."

(00:36) Work with leopards at Junnar Vidya Athreya discusses her work with leopards at Junnar with Sanjay Thakur and two others. She clarified that she was made aware of the situation in Junnar even when she was in South America by emails from faculty and their family from her husband's institute [GMRT]. She recounts that when she returned to Pune, Sanjay Thakur, who she was already friends with, suggested they do something about it. Initially, she was hesitant as she had a young child, but Sanjay offered to do the field work if she oversaw; states that Sanjay was a naturalist, Sujoy [Sujoy Chaudhuri] was a GIS expert, and Aniruddha [Aniruddha Belsare] was a veterinarian at the Pune zoo; she already knew Sanjay, who got CHaudhuri on board, and they approached Belsare later.

Athreya describes the work they did at Junnar. She states that Thakur surveyed the landscape with questionnaires to determine the characteristics of attacks and the damage, and Belsare and her microchipped leopards that had been caught. She says that they had initially reached out to Belsare because of suggestions to collar the leopards, but were unable to get funding for the same; they had received a 'small amount' on reaching out to Belinda Wright, WPSI [Wildlife Protection Society of India]; Belsare suggested microchips because they are cheap, but Athreya points out that the quality of information was very different as it was only accessible if the chipped leopard was caught again. She also mentions applying to the Rufford Foundation for a grant.

(04:39) Incident with the trapped leopard; training the forest department Athreya describes an incident where a leopardess was caught in a snare; before she had moved to Narayangaon [town in Junnar] Belsare had called her informing her about a leopard caught in a leg-hold trap; Athreya narrates travelling there with her daughter, and the rescue, and explains that the leopard was left out in the open under the sun for several hours waiting for a rescue procedure that in Athreya's recounting took 10 minutes. She says that it made her realise that forest officials had no training to take care of emergencies of this nature, but if they were equipped and trained they could immediately address it.

Athreya talks about applying for a Rufford grant to create 5 teams in leopard hotspots across Maharashtra to train forest officers on how to handle leopard emergencies. She also says that they collaborated with veterinarians, explaining that wildlife veterinarians were very rare as it was a specialisation, but every taluka had many animal husbandry veterinarians who could be trained alongside the local forest staff. Athreya says that Belsare's equipment was a simple blow pipe, which was very effective for the most common incidents involving leopards in houses or caught in snare; recounts they worked with Belsare's friend who worked on defense equipment to make a 'desi' version of the blowpipe with larger darts to fit in the full dose in one shot in India, as foreign versions were expensive and smaller because foreign medicine was more concentrated.

(08:24) Presenting the Junnar report; response from the State Forest Department Athreya recalls that they presented the Junnar report in June 2004; she says that the Chief Wildlife Warden at the time, Majumdar [B. Majumdar], was a 'very forward-thinking person' as he invited senior officials for the meeting which was organised at the auditorium of the 'astronomy centre in Pune'. She recounts her trepidation in sharing her finding that translocation had led to the attacks, but she received support from the CCF of Pune, Thosare [Prakash Thosare] who defended her in the meeting as well, by asking others to submit their objections in writing.

Athreya describes the response from forest officers; She received a call from an officer after her presentation confessing that leopard attacks increased after elections in Mumbai because leopards were captured en masse during elections, and then set free indiscriminately to free up cages. She took this in confidence without divulging the name of the officer to the Chief Wildlife Warden who wrote letters seeking details of capture and release in the state. Athreya says, regarding the Junnar Project, that 'It all came together some way, that time'.

(14:13) Translocation and leopard attacks Athreya elaborates on how she figured out that the increased attacks were connected to translocation. She recalls that even when they wrote the report they had not reached a conclusion; says it was unusual because it was an entirely agricultural area with no forest land; remembers reading a paper by John Linnell published in 1997 titled ' titled 'Translocation as a mitigation tool for large cat conflict, or conflict animals' [Linnell, J.D.C. et. al. Translocation Of Carnivores As A Method For Managing Problem Animals: A Review. Biodiversity And Conservation 6, (1997)]; explains that it clicked that leopards were very territorial animals and would try to home back if moved. Athreya also says that her knowledge of cats helped a lot; once she started microchipping leopards she realised leopards were very similar to domestic cats, and were sensitive to disturbance; describes the conditions in the leopard cages, and says they were 'really stressful' for the animal. At this time she read another paper about translocation being stressful for captive cats; she explains that the problem is worse with a predator in high human density areas; and recounts local testimony that the release sites had 'resident leopards' that were scared of humans unlike 'outside leopards'.

(17:38 - 18:09) Interruption; doorbell rings; inaudible conversation

Another paper Athreya discusses is a report by Hamilton [P.H. Hamilton] who had worked on translocating close to 100 leopards to the National Park in Kenya; mentions that most leopards had all left the release site. Athreya also recalls that in the course of writing the paper she arranged her excel sheet by time of attack, and put together that capture and release preceded the spike of attacks. Athreya also credits conversations with officers in Junnar and Bombay during training workshops where they came up to her and confessed that they would release leopards indiscriminately without picking out release sites.

(20:05) Involvement with the Forest Department Athreya discusses the involvement of the Forest Department in her work. She explains that she was one of the first persons to begin work there; when she had first met Thosare he had mentioned a WII [Wildlife Institute of India] proposal to sterilise leopards from 2003, but people were generally unwilling to work in a human-dominated landscape; says the forest department was 'happy' about their involvement, especially because it was a political issue in the region, and the CWLW and CCF Thosare were 'very science oriented, willing to engage and support new work.'

Athreya also elaborates on the importance of individual officers. She says: 'You can't change the system if you don't work with individuals'; talks about how in her experience there is a 'normal distribution' amongst officers where most are okay with letting conservationists do their work, and some will provide support when engaged with; also says that sometimes officers may not agree with the person but still 'give you the time of day'; explains her realisation that you have to work with individuals after writing a 2011 MoEF [Ministry of Environment and Forests] guideline, that she realised was only effective if individual officers used it.

Athreya concludes by saying that while NGOs and individuals can't change much, change happens when officers are convinced to change their management and we are at best catalysts of change.

[00:22:16 - 00:22:26 – Restricted access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in] [00:25:36 - 00:26:44 – Restricted access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in]

(27:59) Language Athreya says she grew up speaking English as the common language in Bombay and was not very comfortable with Marathi; says she ensured her daughter has good Marathi by asking her maids to talk to her daughter in Marathi; her mother tongue is Konkani, and often she brings in words from one language to the other; she has spoken more Marathi than Konkani in the last two decades; recounts an incident where someone she met at a field site pointed out her improved Marathi.

(29:19) Sujoy Chaudhuri Athreya describes Chaudhuri's contributions – they used his NGO as an organisation, he conducted a GIS analysis of attack points, and did landscape modeling for the report.

(29:55) Microchipping leopards and training Athreya talks about her experience microchipping leopards; initially funded by WTI [Wildlife Trust of India] and then Rufford Foundation; initially her and Belsare were driving up and down western Maharashtra for microchipping leopards and also stepped in for some rescue situations which she says gave her insight into management; then the Rufford grant came through, and Athreya says it 'really opened her eyes' due to engagement in workshops with media, field staff of the forest department, animal husbandry department, and the police.

(31:26) PhD work in Akole Athreya recalls being uninterested in doing more research; but in 2005 she was looking for funds to expand her work with leopards, as during her microchipping work she realised that leopards were often captured only because they had been seen and not because they caused damage and she wanted to understand why; also her daughter was going to start full time school so it was 'a good time'; she had applied for almost 25 grants with no success; says that big grants for cats required support, and by that time she had 'messed up all my contacts at WII'. She talks about writing to Ullas Karanth to ask if he had money, and discusses his reply, followed by his offer to her to become his PhD student; says his guidance helped her get the Kaplan award.

She says the year after that, Dr. Sukumar [Raman Sukumar] called her about a grant from the Norwegian Embassy to work on human-wildlife conflict; offered a project to collar leopards with John Linnell as a collaborator; Athreya recounts previous interactions with Linnell when she suggested that him and Laurie Marker be invited for a WTI-MoEF workshop on human-leopard conflict in Delhi in 2006-07; describes Linnell and his knowledge of wildlife, especially his lack of surprise at Akole being a leopard landscape; says she 'learnt a lot from the Norwegians'.

Athreya also discusses how the project came together - says 'it all came together perfectly'; they received a reply from MoEF within 3 weeks, while she had not heard back from MoEF on a proposal for close to a year at the time of the interview; said it was 'very very enriching' to work with Sukumar, Karanth, the Norwegians, and the Forest department.

She also reveals that she had no plans to collar leopards before Sukumar had reached out even though CWLW Majumdar had suggested it before; she was hesitant because of the risk involved, because while she knew leopards were living together with humans, any incidents of damage would be pinned on her; she says she had said yes because she thought MoEF would not allow the program to go through, but then much to her surprise she got the permission in a few weeks.

(38:50) Small interruption – Athreya cuts out for a few seconds, and the question is repeated

Athreya explains why she chose to work in Akole in Ahmednagar district; says that most of the leopards that were captured without cause were in that region; Junnar was a 'fractured place' so she did not want to work there; most leopards captured were in Sangamner, and she had worked closely with the forest officers there, but she could not find a place to stay, at which point the forest department suggested she work at Akole; says it was 'serendipity'. She registered with the Centre for Wildlife Studies in Manipal in 2007.

Athreya also talks about the involvement of Morten Odden in the project; him and Linnell were a part of Norwegian collaborators; Odden had experience collaring leopards and tigers for his PhD in Nepal, and she learnt how to collar from him; explains that it is important to be taught how to collar especially for leopards.

(41:47) Summarising her PhD work Athreya clarifies that her Kaplan graduate fellowship was for her PhD work which involved investigating the density of leopards, their diets, and the damages faced by people, to which she added her conflict analysis at Junnar; she clarifies that collaring was never meant to be a part of her PhD, and it was Sukumar's project that she had taken up.

(42:50) Responses to Athreya's research Athreya says that many conservationists were not believing her and publicly stating the same, she says that it was strange to work from Monday to Friday in landscapes where wildlife like leopards and hyenas were a part of life, and then come to Pune over the weekend and be with people who would deny that; credits Karanth for supporting her work even though he worked in 'very pristine' landscapes, says he was 'open to giving [her]complete freedom and trust'.

Athreya also discusses publications - she published initially in JBNHS [Journal of the Bombay Natural Historical Society], then a 'conservation biology paper', and 'the density paper' in PLOS ONE [journal of the Public Library of Science] titled 'Big Cats in Our Backyards'; says that at that time there was a resistance in India because the animals in question are 'icons of wilderness', but for their survival they have no choice but to live amongst humans.

Athreya says that while she 'went in to study the biology of the animal [she] came out wondering about human-animal relationships'; wrote a lot of articles between 2012-2016, some of which were translated into Marathi, and gave several talks for the Department to villagers and managers at WII and IGNFA [Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy]; had to use the Forest Department's experiences as well as her own research experiences for her projects. She says that 'much more than only her PhD has come out of this in terms of knowledge'.

[00:43:26 - 00:43:39 – Restricted access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in] [00:46:39 - 00:47:09 – Restricted access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in]

(50:09) Waghoba Tales, Ghule, and interacting with locals Athreya discusses [Ashok Eknath] Ghule, a farmer and a temporary worker at Forest Dept, and his contributions to their work. She says that he had an 'amazing way of telling stories', so Linnell, Odden, and her asked him to write his stories, translated his writings from Marathi and added research findings to publish a book [Waghoba Tales]. Says Ghule was assigned to help her by the ACF in-charge of Sangamner, Mr. Phatangare.

Athreya narrates several anecdotes with Ghule and the people of Akole; describes that Ghule used to drive her around on his motorbike, and their first task was collecting leopard scat for which they took a circuitous route to follow animal trails, which 'really frustrated' Ghule; says that him and Athreya had 'great camaraderie', and he had a 'great sense of humour'; Athreya recounts an interaction with the villagers where Ghule joked that they were sending the collected scat to China to extract gold from it. Athreya also recalls Ghule's fondness for doing 'charchas' and says she realised later that he was a respected member of the community; recounts one of the stories in the charchas, about a woman washing dishes who accidentally threw waste water on a leopards; remarks on the humour people found in the situation and how they dealt with it. She also recalls capturing their first leopard and driving him to the nursery to collar him, and narrates how they were followed by people and how they evaded them; remarks that they were 'lying through their nose' so that no one found out where we were taking the leopards to collar it.

(57:52) Being a woman in the field Athreya elaborates on her experiences in the field as a woman; explains how she initially wore a salwar-kurta because she was in a conservative place, but later started wearing a shirt and a cap, and recalls, 'It was very obvious I was from the moon or somewhere'. She says that she realised that while all the places she has worked in were patriarchal, in Maharashtra older women had significant power in the family. She points out that she had a positive experience; she was older, the forest officer Phatangare was respected in the community and spoke on her behalf, and Ghule again a respected member of the community was always with her. She also says that she was happy to join the local people and participate in the community – she partook in chai and water and interacted with the people and the children – which eliminated distance. She advises: 'always stop to talk' to the people. She also engaged with the women who were 'very open' to her. She concludes by saying that she was respected but she doesn't know why; clarifies that she spoke mostly to the men because she was addressing socio economic questions, but engaged with the women and still keeps in touch with them.

Athreya also describes other situations where being a woman helped her, recounting an incident where an official from an air force base near Nashik contacted her about leopards on the ground; she sent them a presentation with pictures of her collaring leopards; she says that she was told that if she as a woman was not scared of the leopards, there was no reason for soldiers with rifles to be. She says, 'It makes a big difference'.

(01:03:05) End

(00:00) Working with Ghule, change in perspective Athreya shares more details about her work with Ashok Eknath Ghule at Akole, and discusses how her perspective changed in the time she spent there. She talks about how Ghule, as a local farmer, brought a different perspective compared to her urban biologist one; discusses how Ghule's knowledge of the people and leopards informed her, giving the example of camera traps; says there was a lot of humour in his perspective, unlike hers which was serious and focussed on the conflict. Reflects on spending time with the locals which she realised in retrospect made people more receptive to her work.

[00:04:45 - 00:06:00 – Restricted access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in]

(06:51) Social Scientists Athreya discusses how the Norwegian project made her realise the importance of social science studies in human-wildlife conflict, mentioning John Linnell. Recounts her discovery of Waghoba and the realisation that people revered leopards; also noticed how political ecology and social power played into the resolution of these conflicts. Athreya explains that she was cautious about who was recruited because they could ruin her relationship with the locals built over several years; talks about recommending recruiting Sunetro Ghoshal through a recommendation by Janaki Lenin, as he was a naturalist and a social scientist; says one needs to know about both animals and humans to study their relationship. Athreya also delves into the importance of qualitative rather than quantitative questionnaires for social analysis, recounting her experiences with the Lisu people of Namdapha, Ghoshal's research into the attitudes and beliefs of both believers and non-believers of Waghoba, and her own work in Himachal Pradesh; she is still trying to convince her colleagues to realise the importance of social scientists.

[00:10:16 - 00:10:46 – Restricted access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in]

(18:58) Perception and context in wildlife-human conflict Athreya talks about the expansion in her interests from studying leopards to studying human-leopard relationships; interdisciplinary thinking in her opinion is rare in India, but she saw it a lot in the IUCN task force on human wildlife conflict; talks about the need for vocal social scientists, and mentions the work of elephant biologist Anand Kumar; reflects on her own successes by saying, you have to be aggressive to be heard in this field of large cats and large wild mammal biologists.

Athreya also talks about how the human-wildlife conflict is an issue of perception, comparing the divergent experiences with big carnivores in Norway and India to argue that it is not the extent of material damages but what is believed to be damage, and the context of the area's relationship with the wild, that determines the course of the conflict; this is why India accepts much higher damages from leopards than Norway does from wolves. Athreya says that if the conflict is 'in the mind of the people' then it is really vital to know what 'what it is about the people' that creates it; says humans are easier to understand than animals, especially because we have no insight into leopard cultures and society, and no unanimous agreement that they exist. Athreya also elaborates on how context shapes human-wildlife interaction; talks about the colonial 'lens of claws and fangs' because white colonists had never lived with large carnivores; says that when they saw these animals in their native habitats, their mindset was 'one of removal' and against shared spaces, even amongst biologists.

(27:02) Engagement with the Forest Department; Translocation of leopards Athreya discusses her personality being advantageous to her work as officers would treat her like an 'agony aunt' and confess insider, and sometimes illegal, information to her; attributes this to her quality of being a 'neutral listener' who hears without judgement and talks about the importance of being respectful to everybody regardless of disagreements; gives various examples of such interactions with forest officers and says that officers would do what was easiest, in the 'Indian jugaad style' given the immense complexity of their work much outside the remit of what they have signed up to do.

Athreya also scrutinises the efforts to stop translocation, saying that while they have stopped in Bombay because of public pressure the same cannot be said for rural landscapes, where political pressure makes it easier to capture leopards even when the Forest Department knows it is illegal and dangerous; expresses that her colleagues still disagree with her research and advocate translocation of leopards that they then collar. Athreya also discusses the interplay of the government, the public, and media. She explains that for the public to recognise other solutions extensive work is required from NGOs which is why change could be implemented in Bombay; suggests that the lack of long-term media engagement in rural areas vis-a-vis media schools and wildlife beats in urban areas also made the change disbalanced. She delves into the extensive legal empowerment of the forest department, but posits that after the 1980s it became easier to give in to calls for capture, even though trap cages were very expensive; says that if the administration was allowed to work by the book it could stop translocation; opines that the shift in the 1980s was the increasing political power of the local people which while good overall, was bad for leopard-human conflicts.

(37:23) Translocation and Generalisation in Ecological Research Athreya elucidates how she came to the conclusion that translocation was the problem. She mentions a paper on stress in captive cats caused by transfers; talks about veterinarians from whom she learnt about capture myopathy in deer and rabbits (death caused by severe stress as a result of pursuit, capture or transportation); discusses Aniruddha Belsare's method of isolating the leopards after tranquiliser darts hit to prevent stimulus and stress from changing the animal's physiology; and talks about her observations of stress in even domestic cats; says that while the stress of translocation does not inevitably lead to animals killing people, it increases the possibility.

Athreya goes on to contemplate how general recommendations should be made with animals that are so individually distinct. She says that she disagrees with people who claim that site-specific recommendations are necessary because laws require 'generalities', even in the human context – how we cannot say human communities are specific so laws and policy need to be at each village level – we need to have laws and policy that are broad based; briefly discusses how formal research techniques like microchipping were the primary source for guidelines only at Junnar. Athreya outlines the four generalities in a successful conservation project that she drew from the 'Living with Leopards' project in Bombay [SGNP, Mumbai]: basic knowledge, better training and capacity building for the relevant agency, partnerships, and engagements with all the stakeholders.

(46:02) Knowledge in conservation in the Bombay project [Living with Leopards] Athreya talks about the kinds of knowledge dissemination in conservation, differentiating between the kinds of knowledge relevant for urban contexts as compared to the rural context. She explains that knowledge was created differently, in 2 sets; in awareness sessions for the people, biological knowledge was conveyed in simple and direct guidelines, and in workshops for the media they prioritised good visuals and stories that fascinated the public and portrayed the animal in a positive light.

Athreya examines her view of why the Bombay Project was so successful. She attributes it to the fact that it was both transparent and inclusive; meetings were open to all and everyone was invited to contribute in whichever way they chose to the camera trapping and awareness building activities. She explains that the Bombay project had to be a collaborative project; Athreya credits the 'stature' of the forest officer of Mumbai at the time, Sunil Limaye, for giving them access to the police, and also credits his efforts to improve training; she says that communicating with housing societies as an individual was difficult, and it was important at the time for every NGO working on the issue to send out the same message, therefore the forest department's involvement was necessary to be the leader and enact meaningful change, and once again the individual in-charge, Limaye, was vital to the process.

(52:08) Relationship with the Media Athreya discusses her relationship with the media during the collaring project at Akole; mentions that she never interacted with media persons during the project; describes her trepidation before the media workshops after the project on account of an injured leopard having been photographed in a house, but says that after the workshop they briefly discussed the incident and it did not become an issue; explains her change in perception regarding the media and the subsequent increase in her interactions with it; briefly talks about Arti Kulkarni's movie on the leopard crisis. Athreya further discusses the substance of the workshops; she spoke as a biologist and Limaye as the management, and both points of view were necessary to engage with the media. Athreya also assesses the response to these workshops, mentioning her paper on the content analysis of headlines that found a change in framing.

Athreya also discusses the 2014 film Ajoba directed by Sujay Dahake; says her contribution was to provide all the material that was requested; assesses the effectiveness of this form of communication in human-wildlife conflict especially in the way it provides a positive image of the animal; and also critiques the film for not choosing a 'more powerful female actress from the local Marathi movie industry' and not exploring the biologists engagement with locals.

File 1

(00:00) Human-Leopard Conflict Management Guidelines Athreya elaborates on the management guidelines developed by her and Aniruddha Belsare for the Maharashtra Forest Department in 2007, discussing how the idea came about, and how it was developed by her and Belsare with the involvement and interest of the then-Chief Wildlife Warden Majumdar [B. Majumdar]. Talks about the aims of the guidelines, which were meant for range forest officers (RFOs), and recounts some of her and Belsare's experiences and observations working with forest officers in the field that informed their formulation. Explains that the guidelines were focussed on changing how animals were handled by correcting misinformation about leopards, leopard trapping, tranquilizing, and care in captivity. Athreya mentions that the guidelines were initially published in English and Marathi, before being translated into Hindi for use in Himachal Pradesh. Recounts several instances where she encountered people using the book without knowing that she was the author.

(06:45) Pause in recording. End of session.

File 2 (00:00) Collaring leopards [Archivist's Note: Recording starts mid sentence.] Athreya recalls several stories from her time collaring leopards. Talks about making a distinction between animals that had 'collided' with humans and those that had purposefully attacked them, and why she refused to collar the latter. Delves into the motivation behind collaring leopards, which was to see 'how they lived amongst humans'. Shares her opinion of the study, and reflects on the reasons why she felt it fell short of its potential.

In this context, also briefly discusses how human dominated landscapes require researchers skilled at interacting with people. Athreya discusses her disinterest in 'unidimensional' studies of wildlife after having worked in human dominated landscapes, explaining that she enjoys the complexity of studies that deal with the interactions between humans and animals. Elaborates that she does not see humans as distinct from other species, and they are equally subjects of observation for her.

Athreya discusses her learnings from the collaring program by recounting several incidents where leopards behaved in previously unexpected ways; talks about how leopards were living much closer to humans than people were aware of, and yet were much more likely to avoid contact with humans despite ample opportunity for attack; also discusses how they observed leopard lives and [dynamics of care in familial units] in human landscapes.

[00:01:40 - 00:01:46 – Restricted access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in]

(07:29) Impact of the study; sources of fear and conflict Athreya also deliberates on the impact of her findings, suggesting that the information itself was already available to local forest department officials, and it was more so the presence of an individual with an alternative narrative on the animal that was impactful in reducing the fear of leopards, further helped by their involvement in tranquilising and microchipping leopards. Athreya says that 'fear and understanding are two sides of the same coin', adding that conflict is caused by a lack of understanding/exposure. Discusses the importance of the personal conduct of researchers for conflict redressal in rural India.

(12:44) Working with the Wildlife Conservation Society Athreya talks about working with the Centre for Wildlife Studies at the invitation of Ullas Karanth, her PhD guide, and joining the Wildlife Conservation Society; talks about continuing her research work while taking on more students and projects; says that she was given free reign over her own work, and that in her opinion she works better that way than when she is micromanaged.

Athreya also deliberates on the differences between her and WCS's viewpoint; says that protected areas are the 'dominant model' of conservation in the United States, and used to be the dominant model in India conservation as well, and given the WCS's origins in the US, it is the model the WCS emphasises; explains her own perspective regarding India's unique position in having a large wildlife presence outside of protected areas; she says that India is resistant to 'dichotomies' in viewing the world and in her opinion the philosophy of 'land sharing and land sparing', rather than one or the other, is what works in the Indian context.

Athreya further discusses her experiences working with Karanth and his shift in perspective on wild cats in urban spaces; she says 'he understands cats really well', and recounts an incident where they collared a tigress in the city that Karanth thought was unlikely to survive outside protected areas, but she was eventually caught on camera traps with cubs; says 'everything is a learning journey'. She goes on to talk about how despite this some philosophies are deeply rooted, for people from within as well as outside the Indian context, talking about the difficulty she faced at a talk in explaining the nuanced difference between wildlife living in urban contexts as opposed to wildlife and tribal people coexisting in a protected area; goes on to speak about the necessity of adapting with the times as Karanth did.

(19:48) Conservation measures for livestock losses Athreya goes on to elaborate on the collared tigress, discussing the presence of wild prey in urban spaces, as well as the preponderance of livestock; also discusses specific cases like Akole where high mortality at birth of livestock means that hyenas and foxes are able to feed on their discarded remains, or Gujarat where there are lots of feral cattle that feed lions; discusses alternative conservation interventions from this understanding of the rural Indian context, such as reducing livestock mortality due to disease to counter the livestock killed by wild carnivores and reduce the overall suffering of the people.

Recounts her own initial impulse from her training as a wildlife biologist to work with a veterinarian to treat goats attacked by wildlife at Akole, and talks about being warned by John Linnell to wait for results before carrying out any intervention; references Andrew Loveridge's research positing that only a small percent of livestock deaths are due to predators. Says that even though diseases are far deadlier, biologists are encouraged only to focus on predators; deliberates on the viability of countering diseases through vaccination, or alternatively community owned pools of livestock to replace losses as more effective measures.

Athreya goes on to reflect on the necessity of '...[planning] an exit strategy for our work'; interventions like veterinary service require funds and the continued presence of an NGO, but an effective conservation strategy is one that is designed to enable the community to address the issue on its own; talks about the end of her own work at Akole and Bombay; says that 'most landscapes need only a little bit of intervention'; briefly mentions not wanting to work at Junnar because it is too political.

(27:28) Work since 2012 Athreya says she had been working part time since 2012 as she needed more time for herself and her family, and was mostly involved in mentoring students; discusses how her work has expanded from leopards to wolves and elephants as well; says that she does not see much difference in the issues of wildlife in human use landscapes regardless of the species being discussed. Discusses her project on wolves in Pune with her student, Iravatee Majgaonkar, who was a graduate student at NCBS, and with Sunil Limaye - the work in Pune was cut short due to the difficulty of working in Pune and Limaye's exit; mentions that Majgaonkar secured more funding and moved to Karnataka to carry out a similar project on the losses caused by wolves. Briefly discusses Majgaonkar's work at Pune interviewing forest guards and daily labour to map out the presence of wolves in the landscape to indicate the extent to which they are present outside protected areas; says the scale at which wild animals use human landscapes is vital for policy.

(00:00) Conservation and Animal Welfare Athreya discusses her engagement with animal welfare issues and organisations in her work. Highlights the difference in priorities and approaches between conservation science and animal welfare; says that biologists' reliance on scientific metrics combined with their dismissal of animal welfare concerns leads to them losing an important ally in their work; explains that in her experience conservation cannot be separated from animal welfare, and there should not be a 'dichotomy' between the two. Discusses the implementation of recommendations such as euthanization; says that the actions of officers are determined by individual, complex, and subjective values and concerns that are beyond the scope of debate between animal welfare or conservation.

[Interruption from 00:04:51 to 00:05:12]

(06:57) Approach to fieldwork in conservation science Athreya talks about the importance of empathy in conservation science fieldwork. Disagrees with the notion that tensions with locals could be avoided if conservation scientists were local to the problem areas they worked in; talks about her early attempts at blending in with the locals and eventual realisation that that was not possible, and that her relationships with the locals could be formed due to her insistence on engaging with them as equals, and her honesty about the usefulness of her project. Analyses the drawbacks of the 'hypothesis testing' methodology taught to conservation students; suggests that in relatively new fields like shared spaces, conservation scientists need to be willing to unlearn textual knowledge, accept new knowledge from their interactions with locals, and admit their mistakes.

(13:03) Role of science in conservation decision-making; Power and bias in conservation science Athreya addresses the importance of science in conservation decision-making; says that science is trumped by politicians and power holders in different offices, with Norway and India as examples; talks about science's ability to influence decision-making by altering public perception through the use of media; points out that even though science should ideally play a major role in decision-making, scientists can be biased and also subject to power relationships in society, and 'blinkered scientists' will not provide good solutions.

Athreya goes on to deliberate on the structure of power in conservation science; says that while scientists and locals are the least powerful and politicians the most, conservation scientists act as 'catalysts' in addressing issues, and can achieve change by liasoning with more powerful stakeholders like the Forest Department or even local communities. Delves into the agency of an individual in this structure through the example of Sanjay Sondhi, founder of the Titli Trust in Uttarakhand; says that even non-scientists can be effective as a 'catalyst' in the field as long as they make use of good science.

(21:36) Science and perception Athreya talks more deeply about how biases inform science. Considers how scientists bring 'baggage' to their study - for wildlife students the 'baggage' is confining the study of wildlife to wild spaces devoid of humans; talks about protected areas and their contentious historical relationship with indigenous people; cites the issue of elephants in shared spaces and says that most scientists' interpretations of elephant behaviour are informed by preconceived notions of protected areas rather than research, and such suggestions become the basis for policy; comments that the personal relationships of scientists with officers are more important than research when it comes to making policy. Athreya deliberates on the ability to move away from one's 'baggage' by being 'humble, open-minded and questioning'; says that some men find this particularly difficult, elaborating that they are particularly 'close-minded, opinionated, and political'; adds that it marks the distinction between a 'good' and 'bad' scientist. [Interruption from (26:36) to (26:59)].

(27:22) Changes in her worldview Athreya reflects on how her worldview has changed over the years by unlearning textbook knowledge from wildlife biology, interacting with locals, and listening to forest officers for a better understanding of their concerns and pressures. Recounts her first report from Junnar which recommended leopards be removed from crop lands, and how she changed her mind because of new knowledge from scientists and locals. Talks about how even her early wildlife work was not in 'pristine landscapes', recalling her interactions with Sabri Muthu, an indigenous person from Topslip, at Anamalai in 1989; and discusses the forced relocation of indigenous people from protected areas as a function of political pressure leading to lack of enforcement, and indifference to cultural and natural heritage in the Indian establishment, both conservation and administrative.

(35:03) Gender and conservation science Athreya talks about the difficulty of being a woman in carnivore biology, the small number of female field biologists, and how she needed Ullas Karanth's support to secure funding to enable a large-scale project. Describes a prevailing 'macho' narrative of wildlife biology fieldwork that prioritises 'pristine landscapes' and excludes locals and 'contentious conflicts', and how it negatively impacts behaviour in the field. Talks about her hopes for the younger generation of conservation scientists to change this status quo due to their greater social awareness and access to knowledge. Explains how the first generation of conservation scientists in India, like AJT Johnsingh, were primarily influenced by Western ideas, but the work done by her and her contemporaries has expanded the discipline and allowed young conservation scientists to have access to 'more narratives, more exposure [and] more resources'.

(40:49) Conservation as a global enterprise Athreya discusses her experiences with the globalisation of conservation science. Mentions that her projects relied on foreign funding; talks about the contributions of John Linnell, who she describes as her 'guru', and about her project with Raman Sukumar, observing that these collaborations were successful because Linnell and Sukumar were more interested in facilitating scientists to pursue their ideas than in dictating them. Athreya describes her more contentious interactions with filming companies from the USA and Britain that were only interested in showcasing the 'maneater narrative' of urban leopards; talks about the importance of telling one's own stories. Briefly mentions how the foreign grants that funded her projects gave her the freedom to pursue her interests. Discusses the difficulty of being published in international journals in the 2010s as an upcoming Indian scholar, and how that was changed by the involvement of 'big names'; also talks about the appeal of the narrative of shared spaces for journals, which she attributed to its multidimensionality.

(47:44) Importance of storytelling to conservation science; social media; lockdown Athreya delves deeper into the importance of narratives and storytelling for society, positing that the right language and framing can make people care about wildlife more than 'dry' scientific facts. She says that the idea of shared spaces has attracted public attention because 'people are drawn in by stories of hope'. Athreya also discusses her decision to join Twitter and then quickly leave it. Briefly talks about animal sightings in urban areas due to reduced human activity during the COVID-19 pandemic.

(55:43) Advice for early career scientists Athreya elaborates on the importance of setting aside biases in order to find better solutions, and extensively reading the work of other conservation scientists while sifting out good and bad information, giving the example of how reading research on mountain lions helped her to refine her study of leopards. Talks about the need to 'bury your ego' in order to build relationships with stakeholders, emphasising the importance of not being judgemental about the knowledge, expertise and work culture of forest officers and the press; stresses the importance of engaging with forest officers because in her view systemic change in the forest department can only be brought about by individual action. Athreya advises that the 'issue [should be] on the pedestal', that is, for successful conservation efforts, the issue being addressed should take priority over individual concerns. Athreya ends by recalling her first encounter with a tiger at Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary in 1990. (01:05:37) End

(00:00:33) Childhood, family and memories from the freedom struggle

Rai talks about her childhood years, growing up across various cities of India because of her father's transferable job. She speaks about her parents, siblings and grandparents. She recollects memories from her childhood and also those from the freedom struggle. She says she owes her journalism to her maternal grandfather who used to bring out a literary magazine in Telugu. She also recounts being neighbours with Amitabh Bachchan's family in Allahabad.

(00:10:02) College life in Nagpur- playing badminton and bringing out the college newsletter She recounts her college years in Nagpur, starting in 1958, and her special love for playing badminton. She shares that bringing out the college's newsletter spurred her to later become a journalist. When she was offered a chance to play badminton professionally, she shares that she chose not to pursue it. However, she continued to play the sport competitively.

(00:15:01) Training at the Indian Express, Bombay In Bombay, Rai trained as an apprentice at the Indian Express where she says she had a great time and learned a lot. She was one of the few women in the profession and was inspired by Kamla Mankekar and Aruna Mukherji. It was during her time here that she had her first experience of covering an environmental disaster-the one that took place at the Panshet Dam. She speaks about being especially moved by an air crash. She shares about continuing to play badminton across various cities and boyfriends from the fraternity.

(00:21:01) First job at The Times of India, Delhi She talks about moving to Delhi and starting a job at The Times of India, where she was the only woman, at a good salary. Rai shares the challenges of being a female journalist in the 1960s, such as not having easy access to a loo in the office and not being allowed to do night duty or the crime beat. She covered painting competitions, fashion shows and flower shows initially and says the men never took her wanting to pursue journalism as a profession seriously. Later, doors opened, and Rai discusses covering the University of Delhi and feeling "the power of the pen".

(00:31:05) Covering the Delhi Zoo and developing relationships as a journalist She delves into her time spent at the Delhi Zoo and how developing contacts with people there, such as Kailash Sankhala and M. Kamal Naidu turned into strong friendships.

(00:35:45) Incidents from Jim Corbett National Park She details three incidents at Corbett- her first time seeing a leopard in the wild, a mahout mauled by a tiger and a shooting incident that went on to become a court case.

(00:42:01) Moving from The Times of India to The Indian Express and covering a story on the molestation of nuns Rai shares that she left The Times of India after 27 years and joined The Indian Express in 1991. At the Times of India, she was not being promoted and her male counterparts were earning more than her. She received a better salary at The Indian Express and here, she ran a page on development issues, a breakthrough at the time. She narrates covering a front-page story about Jain nuns being molested by their leader and how her work resulted in similar incidents getting exposed. She speaks about how journalists raise issues, but are not always able to get the desired result/s. When the development page was reduced to a column to make way for World Cup Football and the advertisements the page would then carry, and her contract was coming to an end, she decided it was time to move on from The Indian Express. [00:46:25- 00:47:22 - Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details]

(00:51:20) Covering the education sector She discusses reporting on the education sector. She had her first exposure to an international conference when she attended the World Conference on Education for All in Jomtein, Thailand [Archivist's note: the Conference was held in March 1990]. She used to cover Ministries such as Human Resource Development (MoHRD), Women and Child Development and Environment and Forests. Covering education under the MoHRD, she travelled across the country. The Education Secretary Anil Bordia was a very good friend who inspired her a lot. She shares that she won an award for her work covering Government school education in Delhi [Archivist's note: Rai received the Media India award in October, 1981).

(00:54:55) Covering people's movements in India and the Ministry of Environment and Forests She talks about the various contacts she developed in the Environment field. Rai also shares about covering the Narmada and Right to Information Movements and what resulted from movements such as these. She draws parallels between reporting on animals and the poor.

(01:00:30) Covering international conferences related to environment and wildlife She speaks about covering the Bruntland Commission and the Earth Summit in Brazil, learning to accept jargon like "sustainable development", and visiting the Amazon River and Rainforest. She also shares details about getting the chance to see a lot of Australian wildlife when she visited Perth, Australia [Archivist's note: she visited Perth, Australia to attend a conference organised by the International Union for Conservation of Nature].

(01:06:57) Pets in the family Rai speaks about her sister's love for a cockatoo that she kept as a pet and while on the subject of pets, about dogs that she herself has had as pets.

(01:09:35) National Commission for Women, issues of gender injustice and women in journalism Rai says feels she had a small role to play in the setting up of the National Commission for Women [Archivist's note: the first chairperson was Jayanti Patnaik) and shares that she was among the first women to write about issues such as female foeticide and female infanticide, across states in India. She goes on to shed light on how dowry deaths became an important issue. She opines that women could have helped further social causes if it was not for having to cover political or economic beats to come up in one's career. However, she acknowledges the good that came out of their doing so as well, such as showing they were competent to cover these issues too. She rues that television journalism diluted serious focus on these causes. [01:10:38 - 01:11:22 - Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details]

(00:00:45) Marriage, divorce and its effects on her children and her career and asking for maternity leave Rai speaks about getting married to Raghu Rai. She describes writing an article on the hopes and expectations of a marriage as being cathartic for her and how it was received. After her divorce, she shares that she has continued to be in touch with her ex-husband professionally and for their children. She talks about how her divorce affected her professionally. She shares about her experience with asking for maternity leave when she was pregnant with her son. [00:02:05 - 00:10:58 - Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details]

(00:16:58) Working for the Times Educational Supplement, London Rai begins to recount a stint at The London Times for the Times Educational Supplement in the 1980s. She details experiences she had while in the United Kingdom and points out the contrasts with her experiences in India, such as lunchtime at the office, the style of reporting and the access to education. [00:20:19 - 00:20:45 - Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details]

(00:23:43) Beats covered upon return to India and the importance of friendship Once back in India, Rai continued to cover the social and environment sector. She refers to her home as having been as an adda for journalists, and shares the pluses of being single. She emphasises the importance of friendship.

(00:26:07) Stories with an impact Articles on thresher accidents in north India are what she attributes as the ones she wrote that have had the biggest impact, and she gives details about this, such as the reasons behind these accidents and changes that came about as a result of her work. She goes on to mention another set of articles that also had an impact, in that it enabled some children getting adopted when their father was unable to care for them.

(00:33:34) Environmental issues and disillusionment She voices displeasure over a number of environmental issues such as disappearing coastlines, erosion, deforestation and threats to wildlife, to name a few [Archivist's note: the World Bank assignment that Rai mentions was from 2006-07, not earlier, and they worked on a communication strategy for Coastal Zone Development]. She attributes the fact that it is her profession and that she loves what she does as what keeps her going in her endeavour to write about these issues.

(00:42:05) Working for Hindustan Times, WWF-India and CARE India Rai talks about her professional journey while sharing a few details about her work, moving from The Indian Express to Hindustan Times, to the WWF-India, and then to writing a book on 50 years of CARE India's work in the country. She touches upon issues she faced such as the reception of development issues and workplace politics.

(00:47:32) Press Institute of India After her work for CARE India, Rai moved to the Press Institute of India. Here, aided by UNFPA, Rai was able to bring out newsletters, increasing coverage on issues like population and health, amongst others. She was able to host workshops across different states for journalists on these issues. She was also able to create a directory of development journalists, photographers, etc.

Once, Rai was very amazed by a doctor from Punjab working on vasectomies, and she invited her to a workshop in Bihar (processing note: the doctor's name was Baljit Kaur). She laments the lack of women continuing to report on development issues in light of wanting to cover other important beats. She talks about bringing out a report, Status of Women Journalists in India and leaving Press Institute of India in 2004.

(00:55:41) Work with Rimjhim Jain and Swapna Majumdar Her next assignment, along with Rimjhim Jain and Swapna Majumdar, was to do with HIV/AIDS reporting in the country. Together, they brought out a study titled Journalists as Catalysts. She goes on to share about the work she continued to do thereafter with Jain and Majumdar. She talks about having done three reports for United Nations Development Fund for Women on widows and one for International Labour Organisation on child labour. She mentions doing work for National Foundation for India and others on issues such as development, gender and health.

(01:03:15) Awards received and books published Rai speaks about her work that won her three major awards- Chameli Devi Jain Award, FAO Science Writers Award and the Stree Shakti Lifetime Achievement Award. She recalls some of the books she has worked on in the past and states that she has recently finished a book on child labour in Bihar- Meri Pehchaan.

(01:08:55) Rai speaks more about freelance work she has been involved with. For the Aga Khan Foundation, she travelled across three states of India and wrote articles about their work. Having witnessed work on the ground by way of the Rajiv Gandhi Mahila Vikas Pariyojana in Uttar Pradesh, she expresses her disbelief with the election results of 2014.

(01:10:58) Changes and challenges in regard to journalism She reflects upon changes and challenges with regard to journalism from around the 1980s to the present day.

(01:15:35) Friendship with Prabha Dutt She fondly recalls her best friend Prabha Dutt and also speaks about Dutt's children, Barkha and Bahar. Rai mentions a fellowship that she helped set up in her honour. She shares about opportunities provided to journalists with the fellowship set up to honour Dutt and highlights the instance of the fellowship being awarded to Rajni Bakshi.

(01:21:00) Human-animal conflicts in Uttar Pradesh, M. K. Ranjitsinh's influence, and membership of wildlife boards She talks about two stories on animal-human conflicts in Uttar Pradesh, to do with tigers and wolves, and expresses her gratitude for the chances to cover such stories. Rai alludes to M. K. Ranjitsinh's influence on her writing on environmental issues. She also speaks of stints with the Indian Board for Wildlife and the Rajasthan State Wildlife Board and says that while she was unable to contribute much, she certainly learnt a lot from her time spent on them.

(01:26:33) Reflecting on her life When asked about whether she has any regrets in life, Rai says that while she has none, she would like to be a forest officer in her next life and have the chance to work directly with wildlife and work from within the system.

(01:28:00) Clippings of articles, Limca Book of Records and plans for the immediate future

She begins to share about stories she has covered by referring to clippings she has kept. She says she writes two chapters- one on nature and another on environment and development for the Limca Book of Records. Referring to clippings of her articles, Rai talks about pieces she has written on solar power, wetland protection, human bondage, widows and female foeticide. She shares what she will possibly be working on next – editing work for the Real Estate Regulatory Authority.

(00:00:56) Early life and upbringing in rural Karnataka

Sanjay Gubbi talks about his early life and upbringing in rural Karnataka, India. He says he grew up in various smaller places in southern Karnataka due to his father's transferable job, mostly in rural and semi-rural parts of the Deccan Plateau area. He reflects on how this upbringing shaped his understanding of society, interpersonal skills, and eventually influenced his approach to conservation. He shares insights into his family background, emphasising the educational advancements made in his generation. Gubbi vividly recalls experiences from his rural upbringing, including time spent with grandparents, observing agricultural practices, and understanding rural lifestyles, all of which greatly contributed to his conservation work.

(00:10:31) Early experiences and siblings

Gubbi discusses his early exposure to the world, starting from the first standard when he spent holidays at his grandparents' place. He recalls experiences like walking in wetlands, gender-segregated theatres, and buying vegetables from weekly shanties. Gubbi reflects on societal norms of that time and contrasts his time with both sides of his family, highlighting the dual occupations in rural life. Frequent family moves due to his father's job exposed him to challenges faced by farmers and shaped his social dynamics. Gubbi also mentions his siblings and their current living arrangements.

(00:19:18) Schooling and scouting

Gubbi discusses his childhood experiences of constant movement across different places in Karnataka. He recalls adapting to new environments and the impact of small incidents which had a profound effect. Gubbi shares his feelings towards school subjects, mentioning those he enjoyed and disliked. He also touches on his early exposure to nature through scouting, where he developed a strong connection to the outdoors. He also emphasises the importance of simplicity and hands-on learning in biology education. He also talks about how, as a child, he developed an interest in nature which was further nurtured through scouting experiences.

(00:26:19) Upbringing in a Digambar Jain community

Gubbi discusses his upbringing in a Digambar Jain community and being influenced by the Jain philosophy of coexistence and harmony with nature. He reflects on the conflict between his personal philosophy and wildlife policies that involve culling. He delves into the strong religious influence in his family, especially from his grandparents, who were ardent followers. While not an ardent follower, Gubbi says he takes the principles of the religion seriously.

(00:30:35) No access to wildlife literature and playing cricket

He shares that he did not have the opportunity to read books outside of school due to financial constraints. He highlights the lack of exposure to wildlife literature or any external motivation for his interest in nature.

Gubbi reflects on his cricket-playing days, representing the state Mofussils, and reveals how discrimination, both in cricket and society, has shaped his empathy towards marginalised communities. He details the challenges faced in pursuing cricket professionally, including financial limitations and the lack of access to coaching centres.

(00:38:01) Playing cricket and family trip to Jammu and Kashmir

Gubbi discusses his travel experiences during his cricket-playing days, highlighting trips to various rural parts of Karnataka where he played for village cricket teams. He describes the warm hospitality, with locals hosting and feeding the players. Gubbi reminisces about the unique rural cricket atmosphere, the crowds, and the rewards of appreciation.

Additionally, he recalls a family trip to Jammu and Kashmir while in the seventh standard, in 1980, where they travelled by second-class train, cooked in trains and dharamshalas, and experienced the beauty of places like Sonamarg and Pahalgam.

(00:42:14) Pre-university course (PUC) days

Gubbi reflects on his lack of career aspirations during his school years, sharing his parents' role in making choices for him. The focus was on securing a middle-class life. He entered science in PUC, opting for electronics over biology, aligning with his father's ambitions for him.

Gubbi shares memories of his PUC days in Tumakuru, between 1985 and 1987, highlighting the impactful teaching methods of passionate educators. Despite the English medium, Kannada was the primary language for communication. He also talks about the shaping of disciplined habits that transcend into his conservation work.

(00:48:06) Passion for wildlife and Conservation Corps Volunteers (CCV) programme

He discusses his transition from electrical engineering to conservation. Disenchanted with engineering, Gubbi's passion for wildlife grew, inspired by visits to Nagarhole during his PUC days. In his third year of engineering, he seized an opportunity with World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)'s CCV programme, alongside friends Raghunath and Ravindra Kumar N [Archivist's note: at the time spoken about by Gubbi, it was called the 'World Wildlife Fund', but the index term and summary use the authority record name 'World Wide Fund for Nature'].

Gubbi worked in Kokkarebellur, guided by S. Subramanya. He shares names of other present-day conservationists who were part of the CCV programme and who have gone on to make significant contributions to the field.

Despite initial success, Gubbi recognised the need for a degree and eventually returned to complete his engineering after almost two years in the CCV programme.

(00:53:50) Developing an interest in wildlife

Gubbi traces his wildlife interest back to high school, where he began bird watching around Tumakuru. Interacting with members of the Merlin Nature Club, Bangalore, he recalls publishing a bird checklist for Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary. His genuine passion led to resource mapping (not knowing at the time that that is what it was called), documenting nesting trees and bird behaviours without formal training.

He also shares the sentimental value of preserving old notebooks and documents from this period.

(01:00:59) CCV programme

Gubbi discusses his involvement in the CCV programme and collaboration with friends. He shares a story of trying to create a makeshift bird ring and successfully releasing a pelican chick at the Sri Chamarajendra Zoological Gardens [Archivist's note: the interviewee refers to it as 'Mysore Zoo' but the index term and summary use the authority record name 'Sri Chamarajendra Zoological Gardens']. He highlights the fun aspects of the CCV programme, bonding with friends, and their backgrounds. He credits the Merlin Nature Club and the WWF nature club movement for shaping conservationists' early learning experiences.

He describes the challenging decision to quit engineering for the CCV programme and his parents' initial resistance.

[Archivist's note: at the time spoken about by Gubbi, it was called the 'Bangalore Transport Service (BTS)', but the index term and summary use the authority record name 'Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC)']

(00:00:46) Hearing about the Conservation Corps Volunteers (CCV) programme, volunteering with Leadership Initiative for Earth (LIFE), jobs pursued and parental support

Sanjay Gubbi talks about how he first heard of the CCV programme and the positive reaction at Sri Siddhartha Institute of Technology (SSIT), Tumakuru, when he went back there. [Archivist's Note: the college is not referred to by its name in this session and the name is obtained from the previous session.]

He recounts post-engineering experiences, including volunteering in Canada with a conservation programme called LIFE. He shares insights gained about international conservation practices and Jane Goodall's support for his work in India.

Gubbi describes the challenges of organising conservation education activities on wooden ships.

Although he initially attempted an engineering and another job, his passion for conservation prevailed. In 1998, he formally entered the field, working with organisations like Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)- India and Centre for Wildlife Studies (CWS). Later, he joined Nature Conservation Foundation (NCF) in 2011.

Gubbi reflects on his parents' evolving support, acknowledging their recognition of his dedication to conservation.

(00:09:13) Interest in landscapes and wildlife and developing a passion for conservation

He discusses his early conservation interests in Deccan Plateau habitats. He recounts a pivotal experience in 1988 during a scouting trek to Tadiyandamol in the Western Ghats, culminating in Nagarhole National Park. Meeting K.M. Chinappa, the range forest officer at Nagarhole, led Gubbi to volunteer for a tiger monitoring project. This exposure marked his initiation into scientific wildlife monitoring, focussing on large mammals.

Frequent visits to Nagarhole, encouraged by the Forest Department, allowed him to observe and understand animal behaviour, fostering a deep connection to conservation, particularly in the Western Ghats landscape.

Gubbi discusses how a fascination with wildlife, like birds, sparks conservation interest by emotionally connecting observations of habitat loss, road construction, and area conversion to the well-being of species. He says that personal curiosity and observation play a crucial role in kindling passion for conservation, emphasising the emotional impact of negative changes in natural landscapes.

(00:18:07) Green Watchers, importance of local languages in conservation communication and joining Karnataka Tiger Conservation Project (KTCP)

Gubbi recounts his journey from running a nature club in 1987, Green Watchers, in Tumakuru district. Engaging with villagers, they confronted human-wildlife conflicts, learning experientially.

He emphasises the importance of local languages in conservation communication. He shares his gradual exposure to the broader aspects of conservation, emphasising hands-on learning over textbook knowledge, and reflects on the impact of writing in local languages for a local newspaper, Praja Pragathi.

Gubbi mentions that CWS recognised the value of field experience, leading him to join the KTCP despite lacking formal conservation training.

Affiliating with World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) India after 1987, Green Watchers engaged in nature education. [Archivist's note: at the time spoken about by Gubbi, it was called the 'World Wildlife Fund', but the index term and summary use the authority record name 'World Wide Fund for Nature']. Through its activities, Gubbi gained insights into the Forest Department's structure, roles, and perspectives on conservation, enhancing his understanding and providing a solid field-based background for his later work.

(00:28:30) Work at CWS, moving to Bangalore and Green Watchers no longer existing

Gubbi's work at CWS primarily involved on-ground conservation, lobbying, and campaigns against issues like Kudremukh mining. He also addressed extraction of bamboo from Bhadra Tiger Reserve, managed conservation projects, and handled administrative and logistical aspects. Despite disliking the mundane aspects, he persevered due to the significant impact on on-ground conservation. The work occasionally involved scientific activities like line transect or camera tracking.

Initially based in Tumakuru, Gubbi later shifted to Bangalore in 2002, which he found challenging due to his preference for the field.

Green Watchers, the nature club he co-founded, no longer exists.

(00:35:29) Decision to pursue a master's degree and the National Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS)'s master's programme

Gubbi talks about deciding to pursue a master's degree during his time at Kokkarebellur, realising its importance for a long-term career in conservation. He obtained a scholarship and chose a one-year programme at the Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (DICE) at the University of Kent, focussing on conservation biology.

Drawing parallels with the open admission criteria at NCBS's master's programme, he advocates for inclusivity across disciplines, believing that motivation and passion for wildlife can transcend barriers, even without formal degrees.

Gubbi shares the nature of his involvement with the NCBS' master's programme.

[36:23-36:38 – Restricted access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details] [39:07-39:39 – Restricted access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details]

(00:43:59) First independent study and impact of master's programme on Gubbi's conservation career

After completing his master's programme, Gubbi initiated discussions within CWS emphasising the integration of science into conservation activities. He talks about his first independent study involved monitoring the impact of a highway expansion on wildlife in Nagarhole National Park.

He discusses the impact of his master's programme on his conservation career, highlighting the exposure to diverse conservation approaches. The experience challenged his values, as he encountered classmates from Africa advocating wildlife harvests. Gubbi talks about resisting participating in a hunting expedition due to his Jain beliefs. He also talks about the programme broadening his perspective, making him receptive to varied conservation methods as scientific practices. Interacting with international students emphasised the universality of learning, leaving a lasting imprint on Gubbi's conservation approach.

(00:52:57) Master's project in Periyar Tiger Reserve

Gubbi discusses his master's project in Periyar, driven by CWS's suggestion to explore the effectiveness of conservation projects funded by multilateral donor agencies. Under Nigel Leader-Williams at DICE, Gubbi studied the social aspects of a World Bank-funded project in Periyar Tiger Reserve. He talks about the research's aim and findings.

The findings were published in peer-reviewed journals, marking Gubbi's early contributions to scientific literature.

(01:01:26) Personal ethos and conservation

Gubbi discusses the ongoing struggle between scientific pursuits and personal ethos in conservation work. He emphasises the challenges of balancing time between science, conservation, and community-based efforts. Further, he highlights the importance of long-term, focussed landscape conservation, acknowledging the trade-offs in scientific validity and personal principles. He expresses reluctance to engage in activities involving killing or harm to animals.

(00:00:33) Human-wildlife conflicts and conservation ethics

Sanjay Gubbi recounts two poignant encounters highlighting the complex intersections of human-wildlife conflict and conservation ethics. First, he vividly describes an incident in 1998 where a leopard was trapped in a well in Tumakuru, Karnataka. Despite efforts to capture it, the leopard unexpectedly leapt out, injuring a bystander before ultimately being shot by police amid chaotic scenes. Gubbi reflects on the moral quandary of whether to intervene, haunted by the leopard's death and his perceived inaction. This experience shaped his resolve to actively engage in future conflicts, despite the risks.

Next, Gubbi shares a more recent encounter in Hassan, where a mob demanded retribution after a leopard kills a child. He confronts the emotional turmoil of balancing human suffering with wildlife conservation, facing an impossible decision when villagers threatened violence. For Gubbi, these visceral experiences underscored the urgent need for conservationists to navigate ethical dilemmas in real-time, often without clear solutions. Gubbi advocates for proactive engagement, recognising the consequences of apathy or indecision in the face of escalating conflicts.

(00:22:42) Decision-making in human-wildlife conflicts

Gubbi highlights the vital role of natural history in human-wildlife conflict decisions, advocating for understanding species behaviour through field observation. This knowledge helps anticipate animal reactions, aiding effective decision-making.

He acknowledges discomfort with euthanising animals but concedes it might be necessary for public safety and population conservation, advocating for rational, logical decision-making over strict scientific adherence.

Gubbi recalls his involvement in the 1998 operation as a wildlife enthusiast, not yet affiliated with the Centre for Wildlife Studies (CWS). He highlights the importance of personal experience and long-term observation in understanding wildlife behaviour, debunking misconceptions about elephant migration patterns in Tumakuru.

(00:29:37) Time in Germany post graduation

After completing his engineering, Gubbi spent significant time in Germany, observing their advanced environmental movement and activism, contrasting it with India's emerging scene. He emphasises Germany's disciplined approach to environmentalism and recommends young people experience its work culture.

He engaged in fieldwork, monitoring peregrine falcons, during his time in Germany from 1993 to 1994. Following his return, he briefly worked at a granite company. Finding the job unfulfilling, he later ventured into computer education with friends, before realising his passion lay elsewhere. This prompted his transition to conservation work in 1998.

Upon returning to CWS after his master's, he began to rethink his career path.

[37:08 - 37:11 – Restricted access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details.]

(00:38:31) Motivation for pursuing a PhD

In 2009, Gubbi began contemplating a PhD, inspired by his master's learnings in scientific proposal writing and recognising gaps in tiger conservation knowledge. He also acknowledged the societal weight given to PhD holders and believed in the necessity of marketing scientific research for practical conservation impact. He shares anecdotes underscoring the importance of scientists engaging with policymakers and journalists to effect change efficiently.

(00:48:30) Experiences post obtaining a PhD and the use of data in decision-making

Gubbi talks about his motivation for pursuing a PhD stemming partly from the societal weight given to the degree, recognising its influence beyond academia. However, he notes that obtaining a PhD late in his career did not significantly alter how he was perceived, as his reputation as a conservationist had already been established. Nonetheless, he found value in the rigorous process of earning the degree.

Before embarking on his PhD journey, he conducted a study on the impact of highways on wildlife in Nagarhole, driven by the need to provide data to support conservation efforts amidst debates with road development authorities. This study, published in Current Science, highlighted the impact of traffic on wildlife and contributed to rerouting highways outside the Tiger Reserve. He shares that this underscored the importance of not just collecting data, but effectively advocating for its use in decision-making forums.

(00:55:20) Creating impactful conservation strategies

Gubbi reflects on the importance of continuity and personal investment in conservation efforts, highlighting the value of one's history with an issue for credibility. He shares an early concern about highway impact on wildlife, driven by anecdotal incidents, which later informed a study. The study's findings were used in court, emphasising the significance of presenting data visually, authentic anecdotal stories, and proposing viable alternatives to influence decision-makers effectively.

Gubbi stresses the need for providing solutions rather than leaving questions unanswered, advocating for a conservative approach rooted in practical solutions and drawing examples from other studies.

(01:02:10) Reflections on wildlife conservation and key milestone years

Gubbi recounts a pivotal trip with Ponnaiah Manivannan along a road, accentuating the importance of his explanations based on scientific understanding. This moment influenced Manivannan's decision-making regarding wildlife and road impact.

Gubbi advocates for the precautionary principle in conservation, stressing the irreversible nature of ecosystem changes.

He mentions the years he joined the State Board for Wildlife and the year the meeting that influenced his decision to pursue a PhD took place.

(01:05:29) Reasons for transitioning from CWS to Nature Conservation Foundation (NCF) and relocation of humans from protected areas

Gubbi discusses his transition from CWS to NCF, citing academic ambitions and philosophical disillusionment as reasons. He recounts personal encounters highlighting ethical concerns, such as witnessing wildlife habitat clearance for relocation and hearing the hardships faced by relocated families.

Reflecting on his role in promoting relocation, he expresses regret over its negative impact on communities. His disillusionment with the relocation philosophy led him to discontinue its promotion. He emphasises the necessity of voluntary relocation with comprehensive support.

File 1

(00:00:28) Decision to leave Centre for Wildlife Studies (CWS) and transitioning to Nature Conservation Foundation (NCF)

Sanjay Gubbi discusses his decision to leave CWS, mentioning various factors that contributed to his departure.

Over time, discussions with his friend, Mysore Doreswamy Madhusudan [Archivist's note: the speaker refers to him throughout the interview as "Madhu", but the index term and summary use his full name], who also suggested opportunities at NCF, played a pivotal role. Madhusudan's support, combined with the chance to work on conservation issues in a different manner, ultimately led Gubbi to transition to NCF.

[01:43 - 02:02 – Restricted access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details]

(00:04:10) Multifaceted nature of knowledge and government systems and conservation efforts

Gubbi discusses the multifaceted nature of knowledge, questioning whether it solely encompasses academic, peer-reviewed data or also includes informal knowledge, experience, and understanding of ground realities. He emphasises the importance of personal relationships and navigating government systems in conservation efforts, highlighting the continuity of work beyond organisational shifts.

Gubbi elaborates on the intricacies of engaging with government systems in conservation efforts, highlighting the need to navigate bureaucratic hierarchies and policies. He details the process of proposal submission, bureaucratic procedures, and legal aspects like notification issuance and gazetting. He also underscores the importance of comprehensive understanding and persistent follow-up.

He goes on to discuss the enduring passion and perseverance required for wildlife conservation, citing examples of lengthy struggles and bureaucratic hurdles faced over years, bringing to the fore the need for patience.

(00:17:43) Importance of political and social aspects in conservation

According to Gubbi, formal scientific study contributes minimally to conservation efforts, with the majority being navigating political, social, and bureaucratic landscapes. He advocates for a redefined curriculum in conservation biology education, stressing the importance of incorporating social components like working with political leaders and media. He suggests mandatory dissertations addressing both ecological and social aspects to better prepare students for real-world conservation challenges, preventing a steep learning curve in their careers.

(00:22:39) Communication and conservation

Gubbi speaks about the critical role of communication in conservation, stressing the need to tailor messages to decision-makers' emotions and backgrounds. He highlights the importance of understanding individual decision-makers' histories, interests, and priorities, advocating for a nuanced approach in communication strategies to effectively convey conservation messages to diverse audiences.

(00:26:05) Diverse stakeholders in conservation and the value of academic publications

He discusses the diverse stakeholders in conservation, including ecologists, political leaders, and academics, each with different criteria for acceptance. He talks about the importance of keeping various stakeholders satisfied, but personally finds true satisfaction in on-ground conservation achievements rather than academic publications.

(00:28:57) Gubbi's PhD

Gubbi draws attention to the discrimination within academic circles based on the institution where one obtains a PhD and the personal considerations influencing the choice of university for higher studies. He reflects on his decision to pursue his PhD in India despite offers from Ivy League universities, driven by his desire for on-ground conservation impact.

He addresses the question of how he came to studying leopards for his PhD, recounting his interest in studying both tigers and leopards. He details the challenges and political dynamics associated with tiger conservation and shares about ultimately opting to focus on leopards due to their ecological significance and research gap in India.

[32:06 - 32:29 – Restricted access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details]

He also talks about when he started his PhD and knowing that all data he was collecting was leading up to it.

(00:35:13) Motivation to pursue a PhD, choosing Kuvempu University and influence of other researchers

Gubbi reflects on his personal aspiration for a PhD in ecological sciences and the joy he found in studying leopards.

He discusses the flexibility and teaching responsibilities he enjoyed at Kuvempu University, particularly mentoring rural students who have since pursued wildlife biology careers, emphasising the importance of diversifying the field beyond urban-centric backgrounds.

He highlights the complex relationship people have with leopards, both loved and hated. He shares that he sees them as a symbol of conservation success and challenge.

His says his PhD aimed to inform ground-level conservation efforts, shaped by rigorous discussions and questioning with Madhusudan, focussing on developing well-thought-out questions and study designs.

He underlines personal influence over research impact, citing Alan Rabinowitz, Luke Hunter, and Madhusudan as examples. Their supportive personalities overshadow their research achievements, making them influential figures in conservation beyond their scholarly work.

(00:43:23) Leopard densities and coexistence in human-dominated landscapes

Gubbi discusses the challenge of understanding leopard densities in human-dominated landscapes compared to natural habitats. He questions the popular belief that leopards thrive outside natural areas, stressing the importance of natural habitats for their survival. He highlights the need to consider both leopard abundance and human perspectives to provide a fair assessment of coexistence and its challenges.

Given that leopard dynamics vary vastly across states, generalising findings from limited study areas to the entire country, Gubbi says, neglects crucial factors like habitat and cultural nuances. As seen with elephant projects, he concludes this leads to flawed conclusions about human-wildlife coexistence.

(00:52:21) Societal dynamics in wildlife conflict resolution

Gubbi sheds light on the severe lack of understanding in addressing wildlife conflict, especially with leopards. He highlights the need for societal perspectives in implementing solutions, criticising the academic focus solely on ecological drivers without considering social and political aspects. Lack of involvement in conflict mitigation and failure to understand societal dynamics hinder effective conservation strategies, he says.

He mentions the importance of preparing students in ecological studies for societal challenges, despite these subjects being discouraged in courses. He warns that neglecting this aspect can lead to ineffective solutions and wasted careers, urging for a shift in educational focus towards practical conservation issues.

(00:58:56) Local empowerment and bottom-up solutions

Gubbi highlights the failure of conservation policies driven by urban, English-speaking elites, neglecting local voices and societal complexities. He criticises the top-down approach, advocating for a bottom-up strategy to address conservation challenges effectively. This imperialistic model, he says, perpetuates policy failures and exacerbates conservation issues rather than resolving them.

(01:03:46) Socio-bureaucratic dimensions of human-elephant conflict

He emphasises the need to view elephant-human conflict not just as an ecological issue, but also as a reflection of bureaucratic processes like ex-gratia payments. He questions the efficacy of scientific studies in mitigating conflict and condemns the conservation community's neglect of societal drivers. Despite extensive research in Karnataka, conflict remains unresolved, highlighting the disparity between conservation efforts and tangible outcomes.

[Archivist's note: 01:08:19-01:08:36: interviewer and interviewee lost connection]

File 2

(00:00:17) Focus of conservation projects and local engagement in conservation

Gubbi talks about the need for the focus in conservation projects to be fair to both wildlife and people for meaningful impact.

Conservation outreach often neglects those directly affected by conservation efforts. Urban-centric approaches fail to engage rural communities facing the brunt of wildlife conflicts. Gubbi's initiative, the Holématthi Nature Information Center, aims to rectify this. By providing localised education in Kannada, it fosters positive attitudes towards wildlife among rural children, countering negative perceptions shaped by conflict experiences. This replicable model, Gubbi says, promotes inclusive conservation practices beyond Karnataka.

(00:00:28) Human-wildlife conflict and relocation of people

Sanjay Gubbi reflects on his experiences with wildlife conflict, particularly a significant incident at a Bangalore school. [Archivist's note: this incident took place in February 2016 when Gubbi was involved in an attempt to sedate and capture a leopard that had entered a school's premises in Bangalore. Unfortunately, the leopard attacked him, severely injuring him.] He emphasises the lasting damage conflict inflicts on individuals and families, advocating for stronger policies and a re-evaluation of conflict management approaches. He urges for a deeper understanding of coexistence and highlights the need for improved governmental and conservation community responses to conflict.

Gubbi discusses the misconception surrounding relocation of people as a solution to human-wildlife conflict and how his initial perspective regarding this changed over time. He highlights data showing that conflict often occurs outside protected areas, even after relocation efforts. Changes in conflict distribution over time challenge conventional wisdom. He criticises the shallow understanding of conflict and calls for nuanced solutions that prioritise both wildlife and human well-being.

(00:12:39) Human-wildlife coexistence and beneficial approaches in conservation

Gubbi argues that while coexistence is possible in natural habitats with low human populations, beyond a certain threshold of human density, the impact on wildlife becomes severe. He cautions against overselling coexistence, citing examples like Mumbai and Bangalore, where wildlife primarily resides in protected areas, not urban centres.

Further, he stresses upon the critical role of natural habitats for wildlife survival, supported by extensive research demonstrating higher leopard occupancy in such areas. He warns of a tipping point where increasing human populations jeopardise this balance, leading to escalating conflicts detrimental to both wildlife and people. Criticising urban-centric conservation approaches, he advocates for a deeper integration into local communities, emphasising the need to understand and respect societal dynamics for effective conservation efforts.

Conservation, as per Gubbi, is not just a job, but rather a way of life requiring immersion and passion, akin to philosophy. According to him, while science plays a role, true conservation involves societal integration and problem-solving, not just quantitative analysis. Conservation is about society, not just science.

(00:23:50) Formal research and conservation

Gubbi critiques the narrow focus of ecological research, which often disregards societal aspects crucial for conservation. He highlights the disparity between research priorities and societal needs, citing the lack of studies addressing human-wildlife conflict and policy formulation. He challenges the prevalent ivory tower approach in ecology, urging researchers to engage with communities and policymakers. He talks about the need for interdisciplinary research that resonates with society and addresses real-world conservation challenges. He underscores the importance of communicating research findings effectively and integrating local knowledge to foster innovative solutions to conservation issues, particularly in conflict-prone areas.

(00:32:53) Science and conservation

Formal science, as traditionally practiced, has a limited role in conservation. It often prioritises peer validation over problem-solving for society. Gubbi argues for a shift towards problem-oriented science, addressing societal and ecological challenges. He compares this to cricket, where true skill is tested against diverse opponents, not just in familiar settings. Similarly, science must confront real-world challenges beyond academic circles to be truly impactful.

(00:38:37) Beneficial approaches in conservation

In reference to his work at Kuvempu University and Holématthi Nature Information Centre, Gubbi says that the language of conservation needs to shift towards the local dialects spoken by rural communities, fostering a deeper understanding of wildlife from their perspective. He talks about the importance of nurturing conservation leaders from rural backgrounds, challenging the elitist nature of the field. He envisions a future where passion for wildlife, not just academic credentials, drives conservation efforts, advocating for a more inclusive and holistic approach to conservation science.

(00:43:42) Wildlife and conservation career advice for others

Regarding career advice for a young person passionate about wildlife and conservation, Gubbi suggests starting with hands-on volunteering in rural areas to grasp diverse perspectives firsthand in order to understand conservation authentically. He advises against immediately pursuing academic courses, which may bias views, suggesting formal education later in one's career. Passion, not just academic credentials, he says, is crucial for effective conservation work.

(00:48:12) Professionalisation of conservation

Gubbi speaks about the positive and negative aspects about the professionalisation of conservation. To ensure effective conservation, hiring should prioritise passion, community engagement, and adaptability, rather than solely academic credentials. Passion-driven individuals from diverse backgrounds can bring invaluable contributions to conservation efforts, he says.

(00:51:29) Working in "project mode", challenges with funding and outcomes of popular writing

[Archivist's note: 00:52:00-00:52:09: interviewer and interviewee lost connection]

Gubbi shares that conservation cannot be confined to short-term projects; it requires sustained, long-term engagement akin to a marriage. Constantly shifting focus undermines effectiveness. Rather than project-based approaches, lasting commitment to landscapes and communities is essential for meaningful conservation impact.

Gubbi talks about funding challenges arising due to the prevalent project-based conservation model and lack of understanding among grant agencies about the importance of long-term engagement and local roots. Writing popular articles and books has helped bridge funding gaps, but Indian philanthropy, especially corporate social responsibility (CSR), still lacks maturity in understanding nuanced conservation needs. Until this changes, reliance on foreign funding may persist, leading to unwarranted suspicions.

Popular writing, like Gubbi's book, Second Nature, has proven instrumental in securing funding for operational conservation expenditures. He says it garners social support, even from rural areas, where individuals recognise and appreciate the conservation efforts, fostering collaborations and inquiries about conservation initiatives.

(00:59:48) Conservation successes Gubbi is proud of, the role of ecological research in them, and effective marketing of conservation ideas

Gubbi reflects on securing over a million acres of land for wildlife conservation in Karnataka, enabling debates on wildlife survival and human coexistence. He expresses immense pride and satisfaction in his conservation career, noting the positive impact on both wildlife and people, despite the challenges faced.

In his conservation achievements, Gubbi says ecological research played a minimal role. Field understanding, bureaucratic navigation, and social engagement were pivotal. Although undervalued in formal science circles, Gubbi believes this knowledge is crucial and could be appreciated by society at large.

Gubbi emphasises the importance of highlighting lesser-known landscapes like Kappatagudda in Gadag district for conservation. By framing the issue around water security rather than wildlife, the area was successfully protected from gold mining, benefiting both wildlife and people.

Effective marketing and selling conservation ideas are crucial for real-world impact.

[1:03:45 - 1:04:11 – Restricted access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details]

(01:08:19) Beneficial approaches in conservation

Gubbi speaks about resilience in conservation efforts, urging against being deterred by short-term setbacks. Flexibility and compromise with stakeholders are crucial, even if full success is not achieved. It is about making incremental progress over a career, contributing what one can for conservation's larger picture, despite personal discomfort.

Gubbi illustrates how passion and perseverance can achieve conservation goals, citing examples like the night closure of highways in tiger reserves. He underlines the importance of approaching the right stakeholders, even politicians, to enact change. Conservation efforts, though challenging, benefit both wildlife and people, often in ways that are not immediately apparent but are significant in the long run. Common sense and societal understanding, he says, are as crucial as scientific rigour in this pursuit.

[Archivist's note: the interviewee refers to the "Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006" as the "FRA" or Forest Rights Act]

(01:17:29) Personal vision for the future, importance of lunacy and cherished wildlife moments

Gubbi sees conservation through a landscape lens, valuing habitats over individual species. He envisions broader conservation work across Karnataka, including diverse natural habitats like grasslands and scrub forests. While open to sharing knowledge globally, he stresses the importance of local understanding and connection, suggesting his expertise lies within Karnataka's unique ecosystems.

He highlights the importance of lunacy alongside passion in conservation work, acknowledging that unconventional approaches may initially seem strange but can lead to groundbreaking results. He emphasises the value of being recognised beyond one's own community, finding fulfilment in the daily challenges and continuous learning of the conservation journey.

Gubbi reflects on the lasting impact of a close encounter with a leopard, acknowledging its lunacy but cherishing it as a memorable part of his life. He finds joy in wildlife encounters and appreciates moments in nature, particularly the beauty of Shola grasslands during the monsoon.

(00:00) Early Life, Family, Education Divya Mudappa was born on 2nd November 1971 in Chikmagalur, Karnataka. Her parents are/were from Coorg. Her father had a transferable job where he worked for various plantation and fertiliser companies, like Shaw Wallace. She spent most of her childhood in Madikeri studying at St. Joseph's Convent but stayed in Hassan for six years in between where she studied at Stephen's English School. Although she was surrounded by trees and coffee estates while growing up, she did not actively interact with nature or wildlife. However, her family had many cats and dogs. She disliked school but enjoyed reading books, largely fiction that she borrowed from lending libraries, encouraged by her mother. She loved going for long walks alone or with her companions, collecting fruits and fish from forests and tanks. After her board exams, she was sent to Marimallappa PU College, Mysore for 11th and 12th grade where she stayed with her aunt. She loathed the pressure and the competition in her class.

(09:28) Initial inclinations to Biology and Nature During her summer break, Mudappa recalls watching documentaries on National Geographic about Jane Goodall and Dian Fossey. Her brother Diveen Appaiah, who was then a student of Botany at Madras Christian College, showed her many things during their long walks which piqued her interest in observing nature. She chose Biology for 11th and 12th grade as it simply made more sense to her than other subjects. She considered studying Veterinary Science as she loved animals but chose not to, as it was looked down upon. She decided to pursue Zoology for her Bachelor's, hoping to learn about animals but was disappointed when most of her coursework focussed on dissections, microbiology and cell biology. [Archivist's note: Diveen Appaiah is the person interviewee mentions as brother in the interview; name obtained from interviewee post-interview]

(17:11) Travelling in Karnataka Mudappa's family would accompany her father's work tours to plantation districts in Karnataka and the Nilgiris. In Karnataka, they travelled mostly to Belur-Halebeed. Her first visit to a Wildlife Sanctuary was from Stephen's English School to Nagarhole for two days.

(21:20) Undergraduate experience She moved to Chennai to study Zoology for her Bachelor's at Stella Maris College. Opportunities opened as she joined the Nature Club where they were taught to handle snakes and go on turtle walks. She recalls meeting Sridhar (T. R. S. Raman) and B. Rajasekhar in Guindy National Park and Kartik Shanker at the turtle walks, all of whom were resource persons at the time. Through these experiences, she realised she wanted to study animals and nature. Chitra Ramachandran and Jilly Joseph, her professors at Stella Maris College, encouraged Mudappa to pursue her interests. She also attended talks at the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). She did not have the opportunity to explore much her own, owing to strict hostel rules. She learnt about events, Master's programmes in Wildlife Sciences and came across newspaper clippings shared by friends like Christy Amithraj Williams, John Matthew, B. Rajasekhar and T. R. S. Raman. [Archivist's note: Interviewee refers to T. R. S. Raman by their nickname, Sridhar, throughout the interview]

(34:11) Life in Pondicherry University T. R. S. Raman in Chennai encouraged her to apply to Pondicherry University's Master's in Wildlife Science, which she joined after persuading her parents to let her go. Here, she finally enjoyed her course within classroom walls and outside. Her teachers, Priya Davidar taught plant-animal interactions and N Parthasarathy, focussed on Botany. Mudappa had the opportunity to interact with and learn from her seniors like V. Shantaram, T. Ganesh, Soubadra Devy, Vidya Athreya, Christy Williams, K Yoganand, J. A. Santosh. The course, she says, did not provide much field exposure. However, they went on a few field trips to Vedanthangal, Pichavaram, Pulicat Lake, Kaliveli Lake and Ousteri Lake that were largely restricted to the south. [Archivist's note: "Vedanthangal"l corrected as Kolli Hills by interviewee post-interview]

(43:47) Nascent ideas on Master's thesis and protests Vidya Athreya, who was studying frugivory and dispersal, encouraged Mudappa to visit her in the field in Topslip, during her summer break. There, Mudappa was introduced to Ragupathy Kannan, who was studying Great Hornbills for his PhD, with whom she interned for a month. During this period, she made observations on the breeding behaviour of the Great Hornbill and studied tree phenology. She also began learning about and exploring rainforests. Eventually, she decided to study the Malabar Gray Hornbill for her Master's thesis. Although she heard about issues like ozone layer depletion, curiosity was still what drove her to study wildlife and not conservation. She recalls going to protests from college against the felling of trees for the construction of the East Coast Road and to Kaliveli Lake but did not have serious discussions regarding conservation.

(49:27) Experience in the field She learnt to carry out observations on birds and nests during the internship. Kannan helped her develop a proposal for her thesis and encouraged her to raise a grant. Her thesis focussed on the breeding biology and nesting ecology of the Malabar Gray Hornbill. Ganesan S., from Eramaparai village who had worked with researchers before (including Vidya) and was familiar with the forests, helped her carry out the study. Mudappa recalls being enchanted by the forest, learning new things every day; she believed that protected areas were truly protected. However, she recollects a few events like a fire burning down a Hornbill nest, observing many teak plantations without forest regeneration, and meeting forest officers, who protected the forest but, on the side allowed logging and hunting in protected areas. She also met Ravi Chellam, Ajith Kumar and Barry Noon who were scouting the forest to study the impact of fragmentation on animals. She began reading global literature on hornbills, conservation and ecology; however, she enjoyed the comprehensive essays written by Kannan and discussing them with him. They also discussed the absence of regeneration of certain species and were concerned about people lopping Ficus to feed elephants, and the death of Canarium trees due to the extraction of resin. She also accompanied Charudutt Mishra to survey the Nilgiri Tahr. Her main focus was still learning about the ecology of a species and understanding a system.

(1:04:16) Work after Master's By then, Mudappa's interests were shifting to mammals. She was fascinated by the work done by Ravi Chellam, Ajith Kumar and Barry Noon on the fragmentation project, and hoped to work on it eventually. On Chellam's suggestion, Mudappa went to the Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun (WII) to work as a Research Assistant for a study aimed at identifying sites for Lion relocation. She analysed scat samples to identify the prey available for Lions at Kuno-Palpur. After that, on BC Chaudhury's recommendation, she took up a project on the wetland survey of Andhra Pradesh, funded by the World Bank, followed by another project aimed at developing a proposal to study cranes. She also met Prakash Gole through the project. Her stay in WII was enriched by sitting through classes of MSc Wildlife Biology and accompanying the class on field trips. Mudappa soon made connections with people working in the field of wildlife biology and came face to face with several conservation issues. The idea of the need for conservation was settling in as she learnt from professors like A. J. T. Johnsingh, Surendra Prakash Goyal, and Gopal S. Rawat and their work. She also published a paper on the breeding biology of the Malabar Gray Hornbill, based on her thesis while at WII.

(1:13:26) Fragmentation Project, work on Brown Palm Civet Mudappa recalls being influenced by Ajith Kumar's work on small carnivores. She also recollects a conversation with Ravi Sankaran who suggested working on something exotic and not a common species. The Brown Palm Civet was a rare, endemic species with only two photographs of it at the time, which propelled her to study it for the fragmentation project. However, as the project's main focus was to study herpetofauna and small mammals like rodents, she could not work on the civet initially. Therefore, she studied rodents as prey species of small carnivores. Her interest in rodents diminished after 3 seasons and she wanted to switch to studying small carnivores, particularly the Brown Palm Civet. Her supervisors, Ravi Chellam, Ajith Kumar, Barry Noon and BC Chaudhury were supportive of the decision. She concentrated on the ecology and natural history of the civet by using camera traps, scat analysis and radio tracking. She was even happier to study it after she discovered that they were frugivores and could connect it to forest regeneration and plant communities.

(1:17:52) Anecdotes of meeting Ravi Sankaran and spotting her first Brown Palm Civet Mudappa mentions that towards the end of her Master's, she made several visits to SACON where Charudutt Mishra and Kannan helped her put together her thesis, which is also where she met Ravi Sankaran. Here, she also met Ajith Kumar, to whom she informed of her Malabar Civet sighting at Karian Shola. Meeting Ajith and learning about his work on small carnivores, prompted her to probe deeper into the study group. Mudappa recalls the events that unfolded during the fragmentation project which led to her first Brown Palm Civet sighting. She adds that the study was conducted partly in the Kalakkad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve which consisted of contiguous forests and partly in the Anamalais which were fragmented, and which could then be compared for birds and mammals.

(00:00) Application Processes, reasons for Studying Brown Palm Civet, choosing Bharathiar University for PhD Divya Mudappa had an interview at Stella Maris College, Chennai while enrolling for a Bachelor's in Zoology. For her Master's at Pondicherry University, she wrote an entrance exam after which she was shortlisted and was called for an interview. After her Master's, she wanted to study small carnivores for a project on the effects of fragmentation on animals. During her initial surveys in Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve (KMTR), she realised that the Brown Palm Civet was more common than the others. Most scats of small carnivores she collected also turned out to be the Brown Palm Civet's scat, in which she found seeds of rainforest fruits. The abundance and ease of finding the civet compared to other small carnivores was her reason for choosing the species for her study. She registered at Bharathiar University for her PhD, as Ajith Kumar her supervisor, was the Principal Scientist at Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History (SACON) which was recognized by Bharathiar University.

(9:08) Motivations for research questions in PhD, experience at KMTR and conservation interests Mudappa says that her camera-trapping work during her project provided insights into the questions she could explore in her PhD, like the home ranges and activity pattern of the Brown Palm Civet, studying phenology, and the variation of the relative abundances of small carnivores in contiguous and fragmented forests. Mudappa considers the three-and-a-half years spent at KMTR for her PhD as the best part of her life. She describes how she and Sridhar (T. R. S. Raman) had built an attachment towards the forest and wanted to stop any form of disturbance to it. This was when she started to develop an interest in conservation. Mudappa describes experimenting with the seed germination of rainforest trees. They planted the saplings in abandoned cardamom estates in KMTR and studied their regeneration. They found many degraded fragments in the Anamalais during their surveys and felt that they could plant the saplings here. That was when the idea of conserving rainforests through active intervention and restoration came to their minds. [Archivist's note: Interviewee refers to T. R. S. Raman by their nickname, Sridhar, throughout the interview]

(18:42) Germination experiments and the decision to work on Restoration Mudappa explains that in a plant-animal interaction course, one learns that if seeds pass through the gut of an animal, they germinate better and faster. The basis of the experiment was to find out if it was true with the Brown Palm Civet or if it would result in the seeds getting damaged. When she revisited the cardamom estates of KMTR in 2008 where the seedlings were planted, she found that the cardamom plant numbers had come down significantly. They decided to try restoration with the experimental idea of planting the seedlings in sites with varying levels of degradation and checking the response of the seedling's survival. She talks about how Sridhar's work on birds, her work on small mammals and Kartikeyan Vasudevan and Ishwar N. M.'s work on herpetofauna, revealed that fragments with good conditions had good diversity in the Anamalais. Thus, the idea was to restore degraded fragments to be structurally better which would support many species. Mudappa recalls an incident where a manager of a company approached them with the plan to plant Teak and Rosewood in a remnant forest patch to conserve it. They jumped in to intervene as they did not have the time to carry out experiments or plan a perfect ecological restoration intervention. They used the small nursery they had set up to restore the patch. It was at that point that the project shifted from being an academic one to an on-ground intervention project. Soon, they decided to focus on restoration for at least ten years.

(26:00) Decision of long-term restoration work and settling down in the Anamalais Mudappa says that it was not a tough decision to do restoration long-term. They were prepared to wait for a decade in order to see changes in the restored plots. What she was not prepared for were the interactions she had to have with people in convincing them to let them restore, the type of species they could plant, and dealing with situations where the owner of the plot changes. Mudappa feels that conservation isn't as easy as research because the players are very different compared to those in research. For Mudappa, the motivation for conservation comes from looking at how fragile ecosystems are and how vulnerable they are to human activities, including research. She was not comfortable with sacrificing animals for science and she found it very unsettling. She believes that every little piece of forest that could be protected would become valuable, even more so now with climate change. Settling down in the Anamalais was not a difficult choice in terms of a profession as she was not very academically inclined. As her interests were in applied ecological research, restoration seemed to be a natural progression. As much as she wishes to go back to KMTR, it is logistically a tough place and she suggests that she may not have felt as satisfied working there as she feels working on restoration in the Anamalais.

(37:35) Being part of NCF, initial objectives, ideas and goals of the Restoration project Nature Conservation Foundation (NCF) was established while she was at the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) when the need for conservation action started to take shape. There, she interacted with M. D. Madhusudhan, Rohan Arthur, Charudutt Mishra and Sridhar where discussions on ecological and conservation issues took place, which led to the birth of NCF. She was thus informally a part of NCF since its inception. Mudappa and Sridhar were always interested in long-term monitoring and tracking of changes. She explains that the plots they decided to restore were in a very degraded state. When they began, they had a wish map to connect the fragments which has not been possible yet. She talks about how restoration has led to improvements within the plots and in people's perception of wildlife. She says it probably has not increased the population of endangered species but it has helped certain plants recover which would not have been possible without intervention. The goal of the project was to mitigate the degradation with restoration and recovery for it to hold what it did during the initial surveys of 2000. They have been successful in doing this and they see fragments being colonised by Nilgiri Langurs and Giant Squirrels. Mudappa explains that fragment connectivity is not very important for large mammals like Leopards and Bears. The obstacle in realising the wish map was that nobody wished to give any land under production. To create the shortest continuity, they would have to deal with the companies that are understandably reluctant to let go of their production areas.

(50:51) Demonstrating successful rainforest restoration Mudappa states that their work has demonstrated that rainforest restoration is possible. Although the exact process cannot be replicated elsewhere, their learnings can be adapted contextually. She believes that having patience and time to learn before implementing is important. Restoring phase-wise is more helpful than a one-time large-scale operation as it needs manual labour and constant monitoring. Mudappa explains that companies and forest departments are very target driven, focussing on the number of trees planted or the area covered. Mudappa and Sridhar sell their saplings at Rs.25/- to commercial ventures as growing and nurturing them is laborious work. She says that if companies and forest departments are left to restore, it is likely that they would choose to buy saplings of any species at a cheaper rate. This would be disastrous for whatever forest is left. Mudappa hopes that restoration in the hands of local citizens who care would use the right approaches.

(1:00:43) Communicating with companies Mudappa and Sridhar have been able to use their research backgrounds in convincing companies to restore some of their fragments. She recalls working with various companies that have policies that make it easier to restore their fragments. The toolkit they use to communicate, highlights the importance of rainforests and the uniqueness of the Anamalais. They are then taken on a walk, after which the person may support the cause. Mudappa says that some companies willingly support them, whereas others make it clear in not wanting to do any restoration despite owning a few degraded fragments. Mudappa explains that the companies know better the benefits that they would get with restoration. She talks about their attempt at bringing in wildlife-friendly certification of the products grown in plots with restoration fragments by collaborating with Rainforest Alliance. However, due to some unacceptable business practices and complications, they had to withdraw from doing this.

(1:09:18) Working on tea estates Mudappa says that most tea estates grow Silver Oak, which is fast-growing and there are no rainforest trees that can compete with it. She says that people worry about the fungal infections that the native trees may bring. In addition, Silver Oaks can be lopped, felled and sold in times of a money crunch which is not possible with native species owing to strict regulations. She says that some tea estate owners are willing to have native trees but many confusing situations arise, like not wanting to buy saplings from them because of the cost. Mudappa talks about providing suggestions to them including not cutting the native trees already present and simply letting them grow, but it is not seen as a budget-able action.

(1:15:37) Sources of knowledge and benchmark sites The knowledge acquired through their research helped them initiate the project. Now, they learn through casual observations, trial and error and interactions with field assistants who come from the Kadar Community. Mudappa states that the Kadars have a vast knowledge of plants, the ability to tell species apart and also recognise sites where they grow best. She mentions that the planters (people who study silviculture) have not contributed much for the growth of rainforest species as they do not know much about it. The planters and the forest department are horrified with the way plants are grown in this restoration project. Mudappa describes using benchmark sites from protected areas as a standard with which restored sites are compared. These benchmark sites come from elevations different from that of the degraded sites which need to be restored. It is complemented by historical records and by knowing the likely composition of the species in the site based on old large-standing trees. It is not possible to grow them in the desired composition in the nursery due to differences in seed availability and germination. Mudappa says that the species composition stabilises and resembles that of the benchmark over time despite not planting them in the same composition. The benchmark consists of 700-750 trees of 60-80 species per hectare. They now plant 1000 saplings of 50-60 species per hectare after accounting for loss. While preparing the plot, they leave out pioneers in case of very open conditions and also leave out native trees that are naturally regenerating. She says that it is easier to resemble the benchmark in terms of tree density than composition.

(1:29:52) Species survival rates Mudappa says that their recent collaboration with Anand M. Osuri is helping them have a clearer understanding through documentation of their learnings. In their early years, they studied survival at the species level and the conditions they grew in. They learnt about the native trees that grow well under open and disturbed conditions which they plant first. After they form a canopy, they plant other typical old-growth shade-loving rainforest trees. The decisions on the species that need to be planted depend on its survival, site and soil conditions, the type, and the presence or absence of the associated species on the site. However, she says that it may not be important to be very precise as most of their fragments have recovered well in a decade, and what matters is the return of its ecological functions. She explains that they do not try to replicate an undisturbed forest which is impossible. They plant trees as they are important structurally and in terms of complexity in a rainforest. The benchmark has several other components like lichens, ferns, orchids, herbaceous plants and shrubs, none of which they grow in the sites. The intention is to nudge a degraded site to allow it to get its functions back, and start the process of recovery for it to try and become a forest.

(1:38:00) Documentation of restoration work and influence of academic studies Certain aspects in the initial years were well documented, however, they did not carry out extensive studies of the degraded sites before planting. Mudappa talks about using adjacent sites as surrogates for what the restored site would have looked like pre-restoration, as those adjacent sites were not actively planted or protected. A lot of learning is passed on through conversations because not everyone who works is into science and research and the project is more action-oriented.

Steve Goosem and Nigel I. J. Tucker's rainforest restoration in Queensland helped Mudappa and Sridhar find motivation for their work. They did not come across many other useful studies after that and due to high subscription rates, they did not have access to many scientific journals. They were informed of other restoration work through conferences and friends. The studies would provide some ideas but it was not possible to implement them as the context and site conditions would be different. They wanted their fragments to be used by large mammals and other animals, which otherwise would be closer to people's homes. She talks about how the studies they referred to had fenced off their sites which was possible as they did not have large animals. The Anamalais had many animals including Gaur, Sambar and Barking Deer that visited the fragments due to which they could not be fenced. Mudappa explains that studies are not comparable even in India owing to different faunal groups and varying land ownership. She says that there is always a dialogue with the owners of the fragments and they have to compromise and not plant certain species, although it may make sense to do so ecologically.

(1:46:51) A bit about the Maximum-diversity method The approach used by Mudappa and team for restoration is the Maximum-diversity method which allows them to grow a lot of species. In the framework species method, species like the Ficus are used to attract frugivores, or non-native species like Acacia are used, that act as perches. They did not want to grow non-native species because they were not ready to control their spread and did not know how it could affect the soil.

(00:00) Knowledge and learnings for germination Mudappa explains that collecting seeds got easier with time. Their phenological studies provided inputs on when to collect them. She says that the downside of collecting seeds from the same individual is the low genetic diversity of that species. She recalls that much knowledge of growing seeds in the nursery came from trial and error and common sense. Mudappa explains that ideal conditions are given to the seeds to grow in the nursery. Although all seeds are sown in a uniform soil mixture, the germination depends more on seed maturity. She says that the challenge lies in protecting the seedling and saplings from rodents and slugs, during the vulnerable stages- these learnings are verbally passed down to new team members and through experimentation. Mudappa says that initially, they treated the seeds like the way they are in silviculture, but they soon realised that if the seeds are left in the soil for a long, they will germinate and grow well.

(11:40) Will finding better conditions for each species to grow help in restoration? Mudappa says that although research-wise it is interesting to investigate better conditions for the growth of each species, it is not essential for restoration. She explains that the amount of work that goes into experimentation is much more than its contribution to restoration and therefore, fine-tuning may not be necessary. However, she believes that close attention needs to be given to highly endangered species. She adds that growing saplings in experimental set-ups aid in studying their growth and survival rates, but they will not be useful practically as the conditions of the restoration sites are variable. Mudappa says that they collect data on seed characteristics which can potentially be used in future research.

(20:18) Documentation, learning about site history Mudappa talks about the initial attempts made at documenting their work. She says that documentation would have been useful as many species they work with have not been dealt with before. She mentions that many of her teammates are not academically inclined and work on the project because of the idea of restoration. She explains that through company 'bibles' and written records, they learn about site and plantation history. By looking at remnant crops like coffee and cardamom and identifying invasives, they deduce the history of the site. Mudappa describes methods implemented to tweak the fragments- before planting shade-loving native rainforest saplings- like leaving out existing recovering species and planting pioneers. The number of saplings they plant depends on naturally regenerating seedlings in the site.

(29:33) Choosing which fragment to restore first Mudappa says that those fragments consisting of a mix of less degraded to degraded parts are targeted first. The degraded portions in the edges are first restored, eventually protecting the interiors, which then improve. She talks about other less degraded sites which have not been restored yet and other sites that have recovered without intervention.

(35:31) Role of formal science and practical knowledge in restoration work; important questions in the restoration context Mudappa highlights the importance of vegetation surveys in understanding plant communities, which continues to influence species selection for restoration. Practically, the nursery aids in trial-and-error which helps them decide on an efficient method to germinate seeds. Mudappa says that research work helps in convincing people to restore and conserve. She says that studying soil and below-ground systems like mycorrhiza would be fascinating. However, she is unsure of its application in restoration. She mentions two aspects that would help benefit restoration. One- find improved ways to control invasives without using chemicals and checking whether it is worth doing it. Two- work on understorey plant restoration. The fragments that have been restored do not have most understorey species. They learnt that fragmentation and isolation largely impact understorey plants due to limited dispersers. Mudappa and team plan to focus on the recovery of these plants in the fragments to the fullest.

(45:45) Opinion on soil studies and micromanagement of sites, further plans to restore other taxa protecting sites after planting Studying soil may help in increasing success but it may not be worth the effort that goes into it according to Mudappa. She explains that because of the healthy microbial and mycorrhizal community in the landscape, their saplings are surviving well. However, she believes that if a species is endangered and is not growing well, soil studies can be useful. Mudappa talks about pursuing understorey restoration next and how their understanding of invertebrates is limited. She explains that growing epiphytes requires good expertise, however, once the microclimate recovers in a fragment, they will soon be colonised by orchids and epiphytes. She strongly feels the need to protect sites as many trees in the fragments have been cut for temple festivals and constructions. Periodically, they de-weed the fragments but they do not actively manure or water them. Mudappa explains that these sites are closely watched by the forest department and companies due to which they need to be cared for in the initial stages. She believes that once this period has crossed, the plants survive on their own if they are not cut.

(56:05) Will there be any difference in restoring her land, compromises made while working on fragments owned by others Mudappa says that if she had a land of her own, she would not interfere much if it were close to a protected forest. Even otherwise, she would simply plant some saplings. Other than not being able to protect the fragment, Mudappa explains that they do not have conditions or constraints in restoring lands owned by others. Sometimes they are requested to not plant those trees that invite elephants which is understandable. She talks about locals collecting fuelwood from the fragments and the team's unsuccessful attempts at suggesting alternatives. She explains that the locals prefer fuelwood as it is used for several purposes and is free of cost. She recalls reduction in tree lopping when the government provided free LPG Cylinders, but once the LPG cost increased, fuelwood collection also increased.

(1:03:33) Does dealing with people's issues lessen the focus on restoration? Does idealism impact their work? Mudappa says that a different set of skills, interests and philosophy is required to deal with communities, and their issues and to get them to restore. Concerning themselves in these matters takes Mudappa and Sridhar (T. R. S. Raman) away from pursuing restoration and facilitating research. She feels that it is her slightly introverted nature which does not allow her to assert her views on people. She says that idealism may have impacted the way they worked earlier. As of now, the team is doing their best in working with communities and convincing them to restore. She describes how her teammates (Sridhar, Srini, Ganesh Raghunathan, Ananda Kumar M. and Kshama V. Bhat) have their own relationships and strengths with different players. [Archivist's note: Interviewee refers to T. R. S. Raman by their nickname, Sridhar, throughout the interview] [Archivist's note: Interviewee refers to K. Srinivasan by their nickname, Srini, throughout the interview]

(1:12:37) Forest Department's outlook on the restoration project and other questions that influence their understanding of the landscape Mudappa talks about how oblivious and ignorant the Forest Department has been towards their restoration project. She recalls some individuals from the department who have enthusiastically planted with the team and have sought suggestions on ecological issues. She says that because restoration has gained popularity, the department seeks their advice on the species to plant on politicians' birthdays. She talks about the scope for restoration within the Anamalai Tiger Reserve (ATR) but when they approached the Forest Department with the idea, they were dismissed and were asked to get the National Tiger Conservation Authority's (NTCA) permission. She also recollects an incident where a representative of the Isha Foundation was allowed to survey the ATR to plant 1 crore trees, most of which were non-native. Surveys on birds, plants, mammals and amphibians carried out by Mudappa and others have helped them highlight the importance of forest fragments. Mudappa says that accidental discoveries like Corilla snails in fragments belonging to companies make the owners proud. She says that studies that focus on the effect of fragmentation on any taxa are always useful. She mentions focal areas of research like long-term studies by her teammates, Akhil Murali and Srini (Srinivasan K.) and nursery techniques by Kshama V. Bhat. She talks about a few studies like Vijay Ramesh's survey of restored, unrestored and benchmark sites and Anand M. Osuri's forest recovery study. However, she says that they must be cautious in using the same experimental design to look at the recovery of other species as the presence of those species may not be a direct reflection of restoration.

(1:25:43) Funding for restoration work To get funds, Mudappa and team had to set research goals. As the project comprised physical work, the labour cost was very high, and most companies provided in-kind support (like transportation and space for saplings) and not funds. Restoration work would be budgeted but it was not the primary component. Of late, they have found avenues to get monetary support for different kinds of work. She explains that local philanthropies are driven by questions on the number of livelihoods being supported and the socio-economic benefits that locals get. Rohini Nilekani Philanthropies and Rainmatter Foundation are two organisations that help them with restoration for the long term. She says that this kind of relation-building is possible with local donors but not international ones. She recalls that their funding from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)- Netherlands was stopped after two years as the organisation's goals and focal region changed. She says that although things have been smoother, the efforts that go into procuring the funds are big. Mudappa explains that because the results of the restoration project can be visible only in the far future, it has been even more challenging to secure funds. She adds that the changing ownership of the lands also makes matters worse.

(1:36:27) Working with the forest department Mudappa says that as individuals it is complicated to work on it. She talks about working with the forest department and people on issues like wattle control in grasslands, conflict management and supporting ideas of coexistence, which was initially not accepted; and explains that once these ideas are realised, it is easier to work on them. Mudappa and Sridhar (T. R. S. Raman) have discussions with people of power about how the law comes in the way of continuing restoration. She recalls anecdotes where companies see the importance of growing native trees in their tea estates. She says that while laws have been created to prevent people from exploiting forests, it also is preventing people from wanting to plant native trees or create forest patches.

(00:00) Getting the Forest Department to think differently about wattle removal Mudappa talks about how the Forest Department was keen on removing invasives due to an order issued by the Tamil Nadu court to eradicate invasives. The department had planned to completely remove them. She explains that the en masse eradication of wattle using a JCB (bulldozer) was not a good strategy as it would disrupt the regeneration of shola grasslands in Kodaikanal and wipe out the existing native herbaceous flora. She then organised a group of volunteers to help remove the wattle individually in a phase-wise manner in Grass Hills in the ATR, to which the Forest Department agreed. Mudappa recalls that the Forest Department approached them for wattle removal because Nisarg Prakash and P. Jeganathan, her teammates, had carried out wattle surveys earlier. She explains that the officers' willingness to listen to the team makes a difference in collaborating with the Forest Department on conservation issues. She says that their restoration work does not get affected owing to their track record and permits that they get from the Chief Conservator of Forests (CCF). She describes how they begin from scratch with every new officer and recalls how most have been indifferent, some eager to collaborate, and a few have been difficult to work with.

(12:47) Mudappa's take on providing opinions and statements and being part of Government Committees Mudappa says that the team is not approached for opinions on local conservation issues as often as they should because they have a lot to offer. She talks about the workshops they conduct for the Forest Department. She describes how plantation companies never consult them and do not take their opinions seriously. In case of amendments to State or National level wildlife policies, Mudappa says that the team gets contacted by the media. Mudappa was a member of the Elephant Task Force constituted in 2009-10 along with Vivek Menon, R. Sukumar, Ajay Desai, Suparna Ganguly, P. S. Easa and others, headed by Mahesh Rangarajan, where they submitted a report to the then Forest Minister, Jairam Ramesh. She says that she does not provide statements on issues about which she does not have in-depth knowledge. She recalls making statements about the Madhav Gadgil Report and the Kasturirangan Report to the media as she felt that she had more knowledge about them. In cases where she is pressed for an opinion without the luxury to research more, she provides them as a conservationist but not as a subject expert.

(24:14) Role of formal academia in conservation Mudappa believes that the work of an academic and a conservation practitioner are different. She says that academics need to have rigour and discipline and are trained to approach issues in a certain way; whereas a conservationist's approach depends on other influences. Mudappa explains that had they continued to pursue their academic goal it would have taken at least two decades. She explains how in restoration, due to lack of time they cannot try and find the best possible approach to solving an issue. She says that there needs to be a balance between research and implementation where the solution also needs to be applicable. She feels this generally in the context of conservation. She believes that to be a good conservationist, a good knowledge of natural history and the ability to understand a system is important. She also feels that a good scientist may not be able to deal with conservation issues on the ground.

(32:44) Personality traits of a conservationist and a scientist; advice for students who wish to pursue conservation Mudappa says that a wildlife researcher does not interact with people as much as a social scientist, whereas a conservationist has to. She explains that being involved in conservation is essential but it comes with having to interact with people which is difficult. Mudappa says that if a student expressed their desire to do conservation, she would ask them to take up a course that would give them the opportunity to read, interact with people and understand what conservation is. Although conservation cannot be taught like a prescription, she believes that a course exposes students to a variety of issues. If she feels that the student already knows a lot, then she would advise them to develop skills that help them implement some conservation action. She encourages the students joining her team to know that conservation is not as black and white as it may seem. Mudappa says that most wildlife science courses focus more on ecology and less on people and their interaction with the land and nature around them.

(39:48) Challenges in interacting with people Mudappa says that both Sridhar and her skills and aptitude complement each other, but both find it difficult to interact with people. She says she finds it more difficult than Sridhar to talk to a room full of managers, but once she starts talking it gets better. She describes that AnandaKumar and Ganesh Raghunathan are fantastic at talking to a large group of antagonistic people. She talks about how the managers ignore what she says, but listen to Sridhar when he says the same. She realised that there was a gender bias and still continues to see that with her teammates Kshama V. Bhat and Srini, where Srini is heard more. Mudappa says that if she has something important to say, she does so irrespective of whether they listen to her because the goal is to work on improving the situation. She says that the younger officers listen to her because they know that she has worked on this landscape for a long time. She recollects some incidents where they would receive letters from the Field Director (FD), Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) or the Deputy conservator of Forests (DCF) that would be addressed to Anand Kumar or Sridhar but not to her which initially irked her but does not anymore as she does not enjoy these meetings. [Archivist's note: Interviewee refers to T. R. S. Raman by their nickname, Sridhar, throughout the interview] [Archivist's note: Interviewee refers to K. Srinivasan by their nickname, Srini, throughout the interview] [00:43:11 - 00:43:18 - Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details]

(45:55) Does the need to be academically inclined constrain from focusing on work with respect to fundraising, PhD Programmes in conservation organisations Mudappa explains that most funds they get have strictly been for conservation work, which depends on the reports submitted. However, she says that having come from an academic background, they felt compelled to publish to prove the credibility of their work. According to her, their research backgrounds and publications may have added some weight to their funding proposals. She adds that they felt compelled to publish for the scientific community and the Forest Department, but not necessarily to the plantation companies as it does not matter to them. Despite the Nature Conservation Foundation (NCF) having its own PhD programme, Mudappa does not feel confident in supervising the candidates. She thinks she is not as rigorous a scientist as she has imagined one to be and supervising a PhD student is an academic goal and not a conservation one. She believes that the PhD programmes offered by conservation organisations are good and important for students who want to pursue further studies, build their confidence in the field and want to have credibility.

(56:51) Mudappa's opinions and ideas of conservations that have evolved over time Mudappa says that she was not against animal species collection earlier and she still thinks it is necessary but now believes that it should be done more responsibly. She feels that species should not be killed just for the sake of it and justice must be done to it by a deeper understanding of the species. Mudappa believes that most animal deaths in conflict situations arise due to friction between two different groups of people. She explains how a farmer would be empathetic towards a captured or killed elephant but would be annoyed with the researchers, the Forest Department or the politicians who may not have helped the situation. She adds that she does not believe that species is more important than individuals. She believes that tribals and human settlements should not be moved out of sanctuaries. She describes a settlement near Topslip, Tamil Nadu which consisted of malnourished and blind people where food and health care could not be transported due to bad roads. In such cases, she thinks that they could be moved to a place closer to hospitals and schools for their betterment, but not because she thinks they are bad for conservation. She says that with all the destruction that has been happening, these communities have the least negative impact on nature despite their occasional hunts. She says that now she would argue against moving the settlements away from forests. With respect to invasives, Mudappa explains that one cannot really do much due to the extent of the invasion. Therefore, she believes that spending a lot of conservation money on it is not going to make much difference. She describes the spread of some invasives in their field sites and its impacts on the local wildlife. She says that if she had the influence of not allowing newer introductions of invasive or potentially invasive species, she would do so. She thinks exotic species may help mined sites recover owing to the eroded topsoil. Mudappa says that exotic species in forest restoration were used earlier due to ease of accessibility but now they are not used. Her stance on wildlife trade and trafficking remains the same, that it is very wrong.

(00:00) Working alongside Sridhar for over 20 years on restoration work in Valparai Mudappa says that Sridhar (T. R. S. Raman) and her work together on many aspects, especially identifying research issues, and discussing them in detail with each other. She describes the roles that they individually take on, with Mudappa focusing on the implementation of the project, dealing with students and assistants, management and logistics; and Sridhar concentrating on the curation and analysis of the data, initial writing and the output of the project. Both take equal responsibility while developing proposals and raising funds. She feels that it would not have been possible to make the project happen if they worked independently. [Archivist's note: Interviewee refers to T. R. S. Raman by their nickname, Sridhar, throughout the interview]

(7:22) Importance of NCF (Nature Conservation Foundation) for Mudappa's work Mudappa talks about being in a position of privilege at NCF as she had been with it since its inception. She says that people at WII (Wildlife Institute of India) and CES (Centre for Ecological Sciences, IISc), were able to enjoy little of what they did and had to do what the institution wanted them to do. She explains that the founders of NCF focussed on spending more energy on what they wanted to do which would help research and conservation action better. NCF allowed them to engage with a place for a long time, have discussions with peers during times of trouble and get support and advice during failures. She hopes that others who work at NCF also enjoy this freedom. She talks about taking up larger roles and responsibilities and wishes they had a financial endowment to take some risks. She says that people at NCF have freedom in terms of time management but realises that there would be some hierarchy while working in a team with respect to achieving targets. She says that the risk taken in case they had financial endowment would be to try and restore a degraded piece of land of their own where their approach would be different. (18:27) Learnings from other NCF Programmes, benefits and drawbacks of living and working in Valparai She talks about how their restoration work has inspired others to take it up, like in Pakke, and adapt it to their contexts. Other projects like the long-term monitoring in Pakke and phenological studies in Rishi Valley carried out by Suhel Quader, are adapted to other sites. She explains that if a project is successful in one, they consider executing it in other landscapes. Mudappa describes that by living in the same landscape where they work, they experience the same things that the locals do. This enables them to understand and support each other, which also helps in their restoration work. The companies listen to them seriously after learning that they have lived in the landscape for over 25 years. She explains that working for NCF also helps them access places that are difficult to enter because the locals know that they do not take undue advantage. She says that being a 'localite' has a disadvantage of not being heard by the Forest Department. She recalls incidents where the Department would conduct restoration workshops and call people from other cities when her team would not even be invited. She wonders if they would be taken more seriously if they lived in cities and worked for more well-known government organisations like IISc. (26:42) Vision and hope for the restoration work She talks about the potential role that Valparai can play in wildlife conservation and present itself as a model for managing places around protected areas consisting of industries and plantations. She discusses the many workshops and trainings that the team hosts where the attendees implement their learnings in their respective sites. She talks about how their presence in Valparai is important in restoring and managing the landscape. She believes that conservation will work if it is being led by a community or a village with sincerity and is unsure whether it will succeed if it is taken up solely by a Village Panchayat or a Forest Department. Mudappa discusses the Ecological Restoration Alliance project that they started, which is an informal alliance to bring together people practising restoration in different parts of the country. She explains that the agenda of this platform is to help carry out restoration in a better way. She explains how there is huge potential for restoration in terms of the number of people who want to work on it but most think of it as planting trees. She hopes that the platform will prevent random planting and provide support, experience and knowledge to anyone who wants to do it right.

(33:58) Importance of restoration in conservation action Mudappa explains that simply removing disturbances like invasives and preventing further degradation of natural ecosystems is also restoration. She believes that areas surrounding reserve forests undergoing massive transformation due to areca nut, rubber and oil palm plantations can greatly benefit from restoration, mainly on private lands. She talks about the limitations of working on government lands which would be allocated for projects other than restoration, like habitat management for tigers. She says that protected areas carry a lot of potential to be restored but it needs to be done correctly. (38:38) Broadening scope of project to tourism, infrastructure and local issues Mudappa describes their everyday battles against construction of roads inside and outside the Tiger Reserve. She recollects their efforts at getting companies certified to be more environmentally friendly, which was an attempt at broadening their scope. She says that they were unable to handle tourism as it became a larger issue. As local citizens, they worry about litter, noise and light pollution and write about the carrying capacity of Valparai and water management. Mudappa talks about Sridhar's work on infrastructure and linear instructions within wildlife areas when he was a member of NBWL (National Board for Wildlife); and Srini's concerns regarding garbage and his drive to do something about it. She talks about not doing much proactively other than connecting the panchayat with the solid waste management in Coonoor and other places and writing letters. [Archivist's note: Interviewee refers to K. Srinivasan by their nickname, Srini, throughout the interview] (43:08) Other research interests She discusses a few research ideas on Hornbills that they want to explore, like understanding what determines abandoning and finding their nests. Mudappa is unsure of working actively on small carnivores but continues to be interested in plant-animal interactions. She talks about Rohit Naniwadekar and Anand M Osuri's interests in the same who bring along students to Valparai to work on the same. She talks about how Valparai has become a territory of NCF which is not something they want and would prefer it if multiple institutions work there which would help the landscape have many voices and would be better for conservation and research.

(46:39) Steps to consider before doing restoration Mudappa says that a person interested in restoration needs to identify what they want to restore and whether restoration is actually necessary. They also need to learn about the land tenure, people and wildlife who are dependent on the place, how restoration would benefit them and what issues it would prevent. She adds that they need to learn about the soil, plant communities and the geology of the place. Further, she suggests engaging with stakeholders. She talks about their restoration sites in Valparai which consist of degraded areas within fragments in plantations because that is what they could work on, logistically. She explains that one needs to know how degraded the site is and whether there is potential for natural regeneration after removal of disturbances. She says that one must simply not plant, as just planting is not restoration.

(51:41) Nature of criticism faced for working with companies Mudappa says that people were afraid that the company would claim to have carried out restoration when it was truly the NCF team that headed the project. She believes that even if they made such a claim, it would not be problematic as long as they restricted it to their own sites and did not claim that they restore in other fragments. She adds that people are also concerned that the company would make use of the claim to convert more areas for plantations and industries; however, she says that it has not happened. She says that these things are based on goodwill and that there needs to be respect and trust from both sides to make it happen. She mentions that they lost a few partnerships because the company wanted the team to support claims that it benefits wildlife without any proof. She says that their project is designed in such a way where even if such situations arise, the team is not indebted/obligated to them as they do not directly take funds from the companies. (55:39) Moments that have given a lot of satisfaction and disappointment, Should conservation focus more on the larger forces that destroy forests Mudappa says that watching their restored sites with trees flowering and fruiting and seeing a Great Hornbill or a Langur on them gives them a lot of happiness and satisfaction. She says that they have to face battles everyday but the bigger disappointment for them is that although globally people have recognized and appreciated their work, the local companies are not thinking of doing something similar. She talks about how writing and supporting a campaign as individuals and organisations has been their strongest tool to stop larger forces that destroy forests. She thinks that others work better on these issues than them and that unless people unite, these larger forces cannot be stopped or fought against. She believes that one has to keep trying and feels hopeful with the many voices and the activism happening now.

(1:03:57) Anything Mudappa would like to re-do, a special wildlife moment She says that because she is more confident in a few things and is able to accept shortcomings, she may have done some things differently. However, she believes that they did the best they could under those circumstances. She is grateful to NCF for allowing them to work at their own pace and not rush which is why they made fewer mistakes. She believes that there is always a scope to improve and feels that her teammates will work differently and work better. Mudappa shares that she looks forward to the congregation of the Great Hornbills every year nearby. She says that she looks forward to seeing the brown mongoose and the wildlife everyday outside her house which is present because of the history of the place and the people being tolerant.

Divya Mudappa notes that over time, there has been a notable expansion of conservation endeavours beyond Protected Areas, with early forest restoration initiatives fostering a convergence of ideas across regions.

Reflecting on India's conservation journey since 1972, she highlights both successes and failures, critiquing aspects of the Protected Area establishment process. Wildlife conservation, supported by cultural tolerance and Protected Areas, she says, has played a vital role in preserving charismatic species, although debates persist regarding the efficacy of the Wild Life (Protection) Act in safeguarding ecosystems and species.

Challenges in managing Protected Areas, such as limited understanding and conflicting priorities, are underscored, alongside a call for improved training and management practices. Market incentives in conservation evoke mixed sentiments for Mudappa, while the importance of valuing land for its ecological significance is recognised. Despite challenges, she advocates for collaboration, emphasising the imperative of community engagement and unity among conservationists for effective action.

(00:00:55) Conservation work outside protected areas in India, including restoration efforts

(00:09:05) Views on inviolate areas, the Wild Life (Protection) Act and The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, and cultural tolerance in India

[Archivist's note: the interviewee and interviewer refer to it as 'Forest Rights Act (FRA)' but the summary and index term use the authority record name 'The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act']

(00:19:43) Permissions for developmental activities and using environmental laws and the absence of other legal alternatives

(00:23:12) Impact of conservation legislation on forest dwellers and wildlife and Mudappa's engagement with the Wild Life (Protection) Act

(00:30:49) Forest Department's management of Protected Areas and its conflicting priorities with wildlife researchers and conservationists

(00:37:55) Differing opinions with the Forest Department and how it views and deals with tourism and restoration

(00:42:30) Mudappa's attitude towards and engagement with The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act in her work

(00:44:33) Shortcoming of the Wild Life (Protection) Act – focussing on species over ecosystems

(00:46:50) Discomfort with giving a blueprint for conservation and the need for community engagement and collaboration

(00:56:30) Challenges faced by the Ecological Restoration Alliance (ERA)

(00:1:00:27) Members of the conservation community and improving conservation training and management practices in India

(01:06:28) Market incentives in conservation: challenges and concerns

(01:25:41) Conservation in India over the next fifty years

(00:00:40) Early years, school life and developing an interest in nature Ghazala Shahabuddin shares that she was born in Caracas, Venezuela. Her father was a diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service and her mother was a homemaker. They moved to India in 1975 and her father became a Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament. She says she has five siblings. She talks about being in Delhi till her post graduate studies, for which she went to Pondicherry University. Her earliest memories are of Algeria- a beautiful house and garden. In Delhi, she did her schooling at the Convent of Jesus and Mary. She speaks about school being a really fun place and being glad for the opportunities it provided to engage with community work. She also mentions founding a nature club with others. In school, Shahabuddin found moral science very valuable. She first became interested in wildlife, animals and nature when in Algeria, thanks to the garden and forest she had access to. Also, her father was an outdoors person and they travelled around quite a bit- something else she attributes to developing her interests. She says she became interested in bird watching and gardening from an early age, thanks to having a large garden even in Delhi, encouraging teachers, a book called Family Fun and Games and Sálim Ali's The Book of Indian Birds. She mentions the names of teachers who influenced her interest. She mentions nature related activities, learning the names of birds and trees, amongst others. She speaks about being obsessed with nature, playing with her siblings and neighbours while growing up, always having pets at home and cats in particular.

(00:14:08) Favourite authors as a child, views on wildlife documentaries and making academic choices Shahabuddin mentions the authors she read and loved as a child, such as PG Wodehouse, Daphne du Maurier, Agatha Christie, James Herriot and Gerald Durrell. She talks about what her engagement with wildlife documentaries has been like over the years and shares that she does not like them because of the feeling they give people that they know a lot about nature without them having actually experienced it in the field. She made up her mind to pursue wildlife sciences in the ninth or tenth grade, after being inspired by Gerald Durrell. She shares that she even wrote to him to inquire about learning veterinary science, but he replied saying he had no provisions for this. In the eleventh grade, Shahabuddin chose to pursue biology and her parents pressured her to prepare for the Indian civil services examination. However, after completing a Bachelor's degree in Zoology, she went to Pondicherry for a Master's degree in Wildlife Science. Her parents were upset with the latter, given the lack of job security and potential travel involved, as she was a girl from a conservative Muslim background.

(00:22:00) Opportunities for travel growing up and involvement with Kalpavriksh Environmental Action Group Shahabuddin recounts her experiences traveling to various wild places in Kashmir and Nepal with her outdoor enthusiast father, and also protected areas like the Keoladeo Ghana National Park in Bharatpur. After class eleven, she became involved with the Kalpavriksh Environmental Action Group, which led to making many friends such as Jagdish Krishnaswamy, Mahesh Rangarajan, Ashish Kothari and Seema Bhatt. It also led to many trips and projects focused on environmental issues. She funded her own trips by proofreading for her father's magazine, Muslim India, which documented the Muslim minority's issues in India. She shares names of those involved with the setting up of Kalpavriksh in 1979. Kalpavriksh, in the early years, she shares, did various activities like a Narmada walk, something during the Bhopal tragedy and was also involved with school quizzes. Later, the Nature Club at her school got involved with Kalpavriksh and that was how she found people from different walks of life who were interested in the environment. They looked at the social and natural sides of the environment and had a holistic approach. She was deeply affected by this and has stayed connected with the group through the years, till today.

(00:27:57) Bachelor's degree in Zoology, interaction with wildlife conservationists and opportunities/projects through Kalpavriksh She talks about pursuing a Bachelor's degree in Zoology (Honours) from Delhi University and her reasons at the time for doing so. Growing up, Shahabuddin shares that she did not interact with many people involved in wildlife conservation. In 1990, through Rauf Ali, she started meeting biologists and people from the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) when they were in Pondicherry. In school, even though some friends were, she was not involved with the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) camps and she only started traveling while pursuing her Bachelor's degree. During her undergraduate degree years, even though the teaching of zoology was mostly lab-oriented, there were wildlife trips and an entomology course that required insect collection. These experiences fostered her interests in insects and thanks to a professor, Pradeep Kumar, in wildlife photography. Outside of college, Shahabuddin spent time at Kalpavriksh's office, helping out with newsletters, planning trips and bird counts in Delhi and Sultanpur Jheel. She speaks about other projects that Kalpavriksh was involved with as well. Through various projects, she not only had the opportunity to meet others in the field, but also to travel around India. On a visit to the submergence zones of the Omkareshwar and Maheshwar Dams in the Narmada Valley and the villages there, she gained a better understanding of their socio-economic and ecological impacts. She also went on numerous birdwatching trips with Kalpavriksh and read more widely during this time. [Archivist's note: Shahabuddin refers to the place as 'Sultanpur Jheel', and this is retained in the summary. However, the index term uses the authority record name, 'Sultanpur National Park'.] [00:32:49 - 00:32:51 - Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details]

(00:40:37) Master's degree Shahabuddin wanted to study ecology abroad but found it too expensive. She realised she would not get the same training in India but her parents could not afford a Master's degree abroad. She then decided to do choose a Master's programme in Pondicherry she had heard about during an internship with Development Alternatives in Delhi, because of its focus on fieldwork and good teachers. It was Shahabuddin's first time traveling to southern India, but she was not overwhelmed as others she knew also came along. She speaks about what the selection process for the course entailed. She shares that she had a broad interest in ecology and the environment, with a specific focus on wildlife- animals and birds, and was less interested in pollution and environmental humanities at the time. She recalls her experiences studying ecology and the environment and good teachers such as Rauf Ali, Priya Davidar and N Parthasarthy. They inspired her and taught her about fieldwork, natural history, plant and animal interactions, and ecological thought. She also learned from seniors, batchmates, about new ecosystems and developed skills in computer programmes. Her Master's thesis was set in a small village in Palni Hills and she went on to later work on a conservation project there. She emphasises the importance of doing fieldwork and understanding local issues in conservation.

(00:50:35) Access to global literature, Master's thesis, and work post dissertation While recalling that resources were limited when studying at Pondicherry University, she was encouraged by professors to read outside of Indian journals and books. Despite not having access to the internet, she was able to obtain up-to-date literature and was exposed to the larger world of ecological sciences. She talks about how her Master's project came about in a village called Siruvattukadu Kombei in the Palni Hills and says it focussed on how land use change may affect biodiversity, assessed using butterflies as indicators for habitat change. The project also looked into how communities respond to these changes. While the initial phase of project was fun, exploring and documenting species, the systematic sampling got monotonous later, but was still enjoyable. She talks about feeling homesick at the time and submitting the thesis a year late, in 1993, because of getting involved with other projects of the Palni Hills Conservation Council. Post fieldwork for the dissertation, Shahabuddin shares that she learned about the Palni area and provided inputs for wildlife conservation. She also developed a bird list for the area, wrote papers and thought about doing a PhD to gain more training and exposure to ecological sciences. [00:59:27 - 00:59:37 - Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details]

(01:01:10) Projects post Master's degree, application for PhD and parents' views on acceptance to Duke University After going back to Delhi in 1993, and doing some projects with Vivek Menon and Ashok Kumar at WWF, and on the Sultanpur Jheel with people from Kalpavriksh, Shahabuddin applied for a PhD at ten universities in the United States of America. She also applied to WII and shares her reasons for not applying elsewhere in India. She was especially interested in working with John Terborgh at Duke University on tropical topics [interviewee correction post interview: specifically tropical ecology]. She shares that she had also applied to work with other professors, such as Melvin Sunquist, but funding was not available at the time. Ultimately, she chose to go to Duke University when she got accepted there, because of the better learning opportunities and lack of rigorous education in India. She talks about what selection to the programme involved and publications she had at that time. Shahabuddin says that her father was happy about her admission to Duke University, as he believed that anything abroad was better than studying in India. He had a positive view of PhDs abroad, as three of her siblings were also pursuing them. Her mother too was happy. [01:10:33 - 01:10:50 - Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details]

(00:01:09) Place of religion/faith in Shahabuddin's life and three major influences on her work Ghazala Shahabuddin shares that she comes from a conservative Muslim family in North India, but she rebelled against the restrictive nature of the religion. While religion was not a significant part of her life before, she feels the need to revisit it now as she believes the Quran is a progressive document with many valuable lessons, and she wants to understand it better. She cites three major influences on her work: early exposure to the geography and ecology of the country, particularly its biodiversity and human interactions with it; being a part of the Kalpavriksh Environmental Action Group which focussed on environmental issues and broadened her understanding of the complexities involved in ecological systems; and coming from a minority community, which made her sensitive to issues of discrimination and marginalisation in society, particularly in forests. These influences were important in shaping her work in environmental humanities and ecology, and made her more aware of the need to consider multiple variables and factors in any ecological analysis. She expresses feeling very fortunate for having grown up in an environment that provided for good education and opportunities to pursue her interests. [00:11:09 - 00:11:34- Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details]

(00:12:20) Impact of working with Kalpavriksh, pursuing a PhD and John Terborgh She speaks about working with Kalpavriksh and becoming interested in the technical aspects of environmental issues. She decided to pursue a PhD in ecological sciences to develop analytical tools and learn about alternatives to the prevalent development narrative. She talks about enjoying all her coursework, sharing that the tropical ecology course taught by John Terborgh stood out. Terborgh's passion and ability to create a story around the topic left a lasting impact, and Shahabuddin shares that she now incorporates similar teaching methods in her own work. Speaking more about Terborgh, she also shares that though he had a fixed view of conservation based on his experiences in South America, and she had a different view of conservation, coming from India, she appreciated the debates and exposure to a different worldview.

(00:21:48) Choosing her PhD topic, fieldwork in Venezuela and conservation atmosphere at Duke University She talks about how she ended up choosing to study butterflies and habitat fragmentation in Venezuela for her PhD dissertation, stemming from her interest in studying how humans influence patterns of biodiversity and excitement to work closely with Terborgh. She goes on to speak about fieldwork in Lago Guri, adjacent to the Amazonian rainforest, along with other PhD students- Madhu Rao and Nigel Asquith- and difficulties such as unpredictable weather and no reliable boats and minimal radio contact. Despite the challenges, Shahabuddin was able to complete her PhD successfully and describes it as the most exciting period of her life, also discovering new flora and fauna in the tropical dry forest ecosystem. She enjoyed her time at the Duke University campus, finding it a lovely place to be with much flexibility and exposure to different cultures. She also liked listening to talks by famous scientists and being at the cutting edge of ecology. Shahabuddin acknowledges that there was a strong emphasis on conservation being science-based, with many courses and efforts geared towards that end. However, she felt there was not enough work on including a Humanities view or environmental justice view of conservation.

(00:32:43) Financial support for PhD, Shahabuddin's conservation worldview and working with Terborgh She shares that her PhD was fully supported PhD with scholarships and living expenses at Duke's School of the Environment. There was also some support for field work and she was a recipient of the Aga Khan Foundation's fellowship. Terborgh, she says, had a hands-off approach, allowing students to work independently but providing guidance when necessary. Speaking about her conservation worldview, Shahabuddin says the period during her PhD strengthened it. She felt that the reductionist way of doing science was a good way to think about management and communicate with policymakers. However, she also believed in the importance of combining reductionist science with a humanistic approach to conservation that takes into account the nuances of different stakeholder groups and traditional knowledge and felt that reductionist science and a humanistic approach were both needed to do conservation work properly in India. After completing her PhD, Shahabuddin felt a strong desire to return to India. She talks about working on a research project with Terborgh, studying herbivores on small islands, including leaf cutter ants. She helped with the field work and later did all of the statistical analysis for the project, which resulted in the landmark paper, "Ecological Meltdown in Predator-Free Forest Fragments." [Archivist's note: the paper is not mentioned by its name in the interview but is given here for reference]

(00:44:14) Return to India post PhD, nature of Shahabuddin's work and Ullas Karanth as a mentor In 1999, Shahabuddin returned to India without a clear plan for her professional future, but with a general interest in working on human impact and forest ecology. She shares that she was keen to find a faculty job to pursue these interests. The common thread that runs through the diverse nature of Shahabuddin's work, she says, has been understanding how humans influence biodiversity patterns. She talks about addressing questions related to the effects of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) on animal communities and the impacts of grazing, fuel wood extraction, fragmentation, and land use change on forests. Shahabuddin recalls a discussion with one of her early mentors, Ullas Karanth, about the impact of NTFPs on animal communities in the forest. After finishing her PhD, she applied to the Wildlife Conservation Society in India, which was led by Karanth at the time, and received a fellowship to work in the Sariska Tiger Reserve. She describes to Karanth as a supportive mentor who helped with her project design.

(00:49:41) Research projects in the initial years upon return to India Shahabuddin describes her journey towards research, which was driven by her interest in fieldwork, anthropogenic influences on landscapes, and a desire to bring science into conservation policy. She mentions working on a freelance basis because of her spouse's itinerant job, and traveling across India from 1999-2000 to find a specific research question and site to work on. In 2001, she obtained a position at the Council for Social Development, a think tank in Delhi, and was given an open canvas to work on environmental projects. She then received a grant with Karanth to begin work on Sariska, analysing the influence of grazing and fuel wood collection on birds in a heterogeneous landscape with different levels of degradation. She worked with Raman Kumar and Ashok Verma to map the forests, look at the disturbance regimes, and conduct in-depth surveys of birds in winter and summer. The resulting dataset was used in several publications and also contributed to global meta-analyses. In Sariska, Shahabuddin found that the absence of certain bird species may indicate local extinction, which led to questions about the history of human habitation in the area. She shares that she then became interested in the displacement of people living inside national parks in India. She began to understand the unjust and top-down management of the Sariska Reserve, especially in relation to the Gujjars. Along with a historian, Mahesh Rangarajan, she decided to further study the displacement of people living inside national parks in India. They organised a seminar and published a paper in Conservation and Society, in an attempt to put together data on displacement from protected areas. [01:00:46 - 01:01:01 - Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details]

(01:03:50) Perspectives from working in Sariska and 2014 paper on displacement Shahabuddin's view of the people living in Sariska changed as she started working and interacting with them and the forest department. She learned to look at the problem from a wider perspective, considering other destructive influences like timber cutting by the forest department, which had led to local extinctions. She started looking at the history of the national park, the justification for its planning and management, and whether it was possible to allow some people to continue living inside with their small-scale impacts and still have a lot of wildlife. The trigger for her change in perspective came from moving around the reserve, talking to people, and looking at the history of the park. She felt empathy towards the people living in protected areas, who had had a bad deal since independence. Wanting to document all of this and balance the ecology of the place with environmental justice issues, she did a lot of writing on this, and displacement became one of her pet projects. She also talks about writing a paper in 2014 with a student on the issue of displacement, triggered by the local extinction that happened in Sariska, and the government's changed policy on rehabilitation thereafter.

(01:11:50) Travelling across India, Chintan Environmental Research and Action Group and working in various landscapes She discusses becoming interested in studying human disturbances to the landscape after traveling across India following her PhD. Observing subtle degradation and regeneration problems led to a curiosity about the fate of forests and their impact on the people who depend on them. Shahabuddin mentions founding an environmental action group in Delhi- Chintan Environmental Research and Action Group- with which she worked for about a year. The group was initially meant to work on various environmental issues, including research and conservation, but later decided to focus on waste and energy. She talks about working as a research assistant in the Kanha Tiger Reserve for a project on protected area management with the Indian Institute of Public Administration in 1999. She then worked with Winrock International on a consultancy project on the influence of NTFP collection and joint forest management in West Bengal. She mentions travelling across India from 1999 to 2000 to see a range of forest ecosystems and wetlands, supporting herself while staying with her parents [interviewee addition post interview: seeing human interactions in the forest ecosystems and wetlands was also something she did during this time]. On a trip to a tribal area in Gadchiroli, she participated in a workshop and developed a proposal on forest management with the tribal community. The community had appropriated the forest and was doing a good job of protecting it, but they had also encountered problems with regeneration, reducing NTFP collections, and external lopping. She found the experience eye-opening and realised the ambiguities of the situation between traditional knowledge and modern science.

(01:21:23) Having to move research out of Sariska She speaks about the project focussed on birds and vegetation in Sariska in the 2000s, studying how vegetation responds to extractive use and how that affects birds. While she would have loved to continue working in Sariska, she recollects that all researchers were "thrown out" after the local extinction of tigers. Barely managing to complete data collection, Kumar and she had to move out in 2005, as permits to work in Sariska became impossible to obtain. However, she continued the displacement work outside Sariska where some villagers had been moved. She also went on to find a site in the Himalayas where one did not need permits to work.

(00:01:12) Council for Social Development, the Sariska project and interactions with colleagues and collaborators Ghazala Shahabuddin talks about facing difficulty in finding a teaching position upon her return to Delhi. Despite being qualified, she did not get the assistant professorship she applied for. Instead, she decided to freelance and continue her research. She then came across an opening in the Council for Social Development, which was starting an environment department and wanted a younger person to come on board. It gave her the freedom to develop the department and work on her concerns about conservation issues, including the human dimensions of conservation. She discusses her experience studying bird life in Sariska. She notes that the core area of the park had healthy vegetation and abundant prey, but the areas outside of the core were overgrazed and degraded, with native vegetation changing significantly. This prompted her to investigate the history of the park's vegetation and land use, as well as the management practices of the forest department. With funds from a grant from India Foundation, she collaborated with a sociologist- Ravi Kumar and a historian- Radhika Johari, to form a multi-disciplinary team to analyse the problem of forest degradation in Sariska. They collected documents from various archives, including state documents about how people used the landscape and were settled in the area. They aimed to understand the long-term causes of the forest's degradation, and not just the immediate issues of grazing and wood-cutting. Shahabuddin found the experience of studying the history and management practices of the park exciting and motivating, despite the ecological concerns at the heart of the investigation. This historical perspective was unusual for her, as ecologists often focus on immediate causes and solutions to environmental problems, she says. She mentions attending seminars and meetings in Delhi where social and historical issues, such as caste and tribal rights, were discussed, with scholars like Rohan D'Souza, Mahesh Rangarajan, and Vasant Saberwal. She became interested in studying the degradation of the Sariska forest, and with the support of her colleagues, conducted research on the longer-term causes of the problem. She did not view the local people as the sole cause of the degradation, but rather wanted to understand the complex factors contributing to it. Shahabuddin found empowerment in obtaining a PhD and believed she could tackle complex problems such as this. She spent time in the field with students, collecting data on the sociology and bird life of the area. She also observed issues with the management of protected areas and was able to access sensitive information from Forest Department files. This led to a broader interest in displacement issues in India, and she collaborated with Rangarajan to organise a seminar on the topic. In 2004, before the local extinction of tigers in Sariska was discovered, Shahabuddin tried to gather information on displacement through a social project. She had finished her fieldwork when the tiger crisis erupted in February 2005. After that, it was impossible to obtain permission to talk to villagers and do fieldwork. Speaking about her collaborators, she shares that she co-authored a paper on the project in Economic and Political Weekly (EPW) with Manish Shrivastava, a student from Jawaharlal Nehru University. Ashok Verma and Raman Kumar, she says, were involved with the bird work from 2003 to 2004 and 2004 to 2005, respectively.

(00:16:53) Sariska: Forest Department and community-based conservation Shahabuddin states that before the tiger crisis, the forest department was easier to communicate with. She says that she did not need formal permission to visit villages, and the department allowed her to do so informally. Shahabuddin reflects on how the project forced her to understand the socioeconomics of the area and the pressures on the people living there. She criticises the Forest Department for not taking action to address these issues while blaming the Gujjars for the loss of tigers. She advocates for community-based conservation around protected areas and finding a balance between biodiversity and human use. She believes that social scientists and conservationists need to work together to find solutions to protect the area from degradation. Her work aimed to contribute to this balance and to figure out what more can be done in the landscape to protect it. [00:17:16 - 00:17:51 - Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details] [00:20:54 - 00:21:05 - Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details]

(00:23:51) Collaborations on environment and displacement and motivations behind them She attributes helping organise the symposium on displacement to her interest in human dimensions in protected areas. She speaks about those who attended it. She shares how she had noticed conflict around protected areas during field visits. In 2003, she was part of putting together a special issue on environmental issues, with contributions from conservationists, law experts, and scientists. Shahabuddin goes on to discuss her collaboration with Rangarajan on a paper on displacement for Conservation and Society's special issue on the topic. They had become interested in the issue due to the push to throw more people out of tiger reserves during the tiger crisis, with the narrative being that displacement was necessary to save biodiversity. She was keen to document how many people had been displaced and bring attention to the issue for conservationists to consider when conducting conservation efforts. They asked people from different countries to contribute papers for the special issue as well. The motivation for the 2014 paper, Conservation-induced Displacement: Recent Perspectives from India [Archivist's note: the paper is not mentioned by its name in the interview, but is given here for reference], she says, was to assess whether the new relocation package implemented after the tiger crisis had improved the displacement process and social impact for oustees. [Archivist's note: the interviewee refers to 'the Ministry of Environment' but the index term uses the authority record name Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), though it was called Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) at the time being spoken about in the interview.]

(00:33:46) Value of approaches adopted in her research Next, Shahabuddin reflects on her experience of conducting an in-depth study of protected area management and people-park relations in Sariska, which had not been done in such detail before. She emphasises the importance of a multi-disciplinary team, consisting of both social scientists and ecologists, to ensure a balanced and comprehensive approach to managing protected areas. However, she cautions against individuals without the proper training or guidance from experts attempting to conduct such studies. She also notes that funding for these kinds of studies is often lacking, with conservation organisations more focussed on protecting specific species than taking into account the social and ecological impact of conservation efforts on local communities. Overall, she emphasises the need for a careful and thoughtful approach to conservation efforts that takes into account the perspectives of all stakeholders involved. Shahabuddin discusses the importance of understanding the human environment when conducting ecological research. She uses a lot of historical background before framing questions to ensure a better understanding of the variables. She highlights the importance of connecting with local communities when conducting research, as they can provide valuable information about the history of the place and its use.

(00:39:46) Asking applied questions She believes that it is important to ask applied questions that can be used for policy advocacy and management advice. She admits to being a conservationist at heart and not a pure scientist, although she is planning to get back to ecology research, particularly in the Himalayas, where bird life is changing with climate and land use change.

(00:45:20) Writing on Indian conservation The motivation for organising seminars and editing books with the aim of bringing together diverse perspectives on conservation and knowledge, Shahabuddin states, came from the belief that social scientists and biologists need to talk to each other for productive and exciting discussions, even if they have different perspectives. Finding that many ecologists were engaging with locals but not writing about it, she wanted to get people to write about the social dimensions of conservation. She found it challenging to get people to write, deliver on time, and put together a book that combines science and social science perspectives. She was encouraged by people like Rangarajan and Saberwal, who were also sensitive to the social and ecological parts of the story. Shahabuddin talks about writing a book on Indian conservation, Conservation at the Crossroads: Science, Society, and the Future of India's Wildlife, motivated by her twenty years of experience and the lack of representation from an ecologist's point of view. She left the Council for Social Development in 2004 to move to Nepal and continued working on the book, Making Conservation Work, while she was there. She then moved to the US and with support from the New India Fellowship, finished writing her book, Conservation at the Crossroads, from 2007 to 2009. [Archivist's note: the books are not named in the interview, but are provided here for reference] [Archivist's note: the interviewee refers to T.R. Shankar Raman as 'Sridhar']

(00:53:13) Years at Ambedkar University Delhi (AUD) and work in Kumaon In 2009, she returned to India and applied for a position at Ambedkar University Delhi (AUD), to try out academia. She describes her time at the new department there, the School of Human Ecology, focussed on environment and development studies. A high teaching commitment left little time for research, but she was able to take students to the field for their Master's research in the Himalayan ecology. This allowed her to gain an inroad into the local ecology and work on bird life. She interacted closely with social scientists in the department and learned about social research methods. The university atmosphere was conducive to multi-disciplinary work and peer-reviewed research. She also liked interacting with those on the Board, such as Sudha Vasan and CR Babu. She was associated with Centre for Ecology, Development and Research (CEDAR) and worked with a local NGO, Central Himalayan Rural Action Group (CHIRAG), which focussed on afforestation, spring water revival, and income generation activities in the Kumaon area. The NGO welcomed university students to interact with them and work on projects. Eventually in 2014, politics, a schism between social scientists and ecologists resulted in Shahabuddin leaving AUD and deciding to return to the NGO world or freelance work. [01:01:28- 01:01:48 - Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details]

(01:01:47) Rashtrapati Bhavan project and cheetah reintroduction programme Shahabuddin then speaks about her involvement with a year-long project on documenting the natural part of the Rashtrapati Bhavan. Amita Baviskar had told her about this project [interviewee addition post interview: it was Baviskar who hired her for this project]. It involved surveying all animal groups that could be seen, hiring students to do surveys during different seasons, and documenting biodiversity there. She specifically mentions consulting Pradeep Krishen regarding plants. She talks about the chapters she wrote for the book, released by President Pranab Mukherjee, which was an outcome of this project. It is now available online and with the government as a document for the future. She shares that she had a long-standing interest in cheetahs and pursued a fellowship at the Centre for the Advanced Study of India, University of Pennsylvania, in 2015 to study the politics of the reintroduction programme of cheetahs in India. Initially, she planned to work on displacement but focused on the cheetah issue at the suggestion of their mentor, Devesh Kapur, at the institute. She went on to write a paper on the subject. Shahabuddin states that the reintroduction of cheetahs to India is a controversial project that requires serious planning and socioeconomic development to be successful. She mentions a lot of issues with the project, a few of them being concerns over genetics, ecological viability, and social issues. According to her, more preparation and study are needed before the reintroduction of cheetahs to India can be done correctly. [01:10:28 - 01:10:30 - Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details] [01:12:14 - 01:14:19 - Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details]

(01:15:51) Work in the Himalayas Shahabuddin discusses her involvement with CEDAR and the work they did in the Himalayas. She worked on various projects, and was especially interested in land use change and its impact on Himalayan birds. She mentions mentoring Tarun Menon, who worked on a large project in the Mukteshwar landscape. She also worked on a project on the fire issue with a student from National Centre for Biological Sciences- Rohit Nandakumar, and volunteered as a trainer for a consortium of NGOs promoting nature tourism at the community level. She was drawn to the region due to its rural nature tourism programme and the disappearing Himalayan oak forest. Along with a student, she also researched van panchayats and changing forest management in the area.

(01:23:24) Current research and affiliations Shahabuddin has received small grants from Nature Conservation Foundation and Indian Institute of Science to study bird abundance and patterns related to climate change. She is re-surveying bird observation sites from 2016 onwards, with a particular interest in woodpeckers as an indicator species affected by climate change. She plans to write grant proposals for further studies on species interactions and competitive pressures in the forest. She shares that last year, she joined WCS India as a scientist, moving from CEDAR to expand her peer group. She has also been associated with Ashoka University, in a teaching position, which is likely to continue.

(00:01:24) Conservation worldview With reference to her conservation worldview, Ghazala Shahabuddin shares that it has remained largely the same since her involvement in various campaigns and projects since high school, but she now realises the complexity of conservation and the need for a wider framework of understanding, including social and government policies. She emphasises the importance of working with people and communities to bring about change locally, but also recognises the potential impact of top-down government policies on conservation efforts. She cites an example of a community-managed forest that is threatened by a government road-building project, demonstrating how government policies can drastically impact the success of conservation efforts.

(00:06:55) Influencing government policy and involvement in research and conservation She acknowledges that conservationists and scholars, both face challenges in working with governments due to the time-consuming nature of their work, but feels the former must deal with them more actively to influence government decisions. Shahabuddin discusses her increased involvement in conservation over the years and her focus on building capacity among young scholars and local conservationists. She is part of a network of NGOs and individuals building capacity for nature-linked tourism among local youth in Uttarakhand, and she helps raise money for projects such as nature guides and training workshops. She expresses a desire to do more in local conservation and create projects focused on participatory forest restoration. Despite this focus on conservation, Shahabuddin is still actively involved in research, which she sees as essential for effective implementation of conservation interventions. She feels that research and conservation have a positive feedback loop and that one foot should be kept in both areas. She believes that research is critical to understanding the complexities of local systems and ecosystems and that conservation work feeds into research.

(00:16:05) Place of formal scientific knowledge in conservation in India and globalisation of conservation Shahabuddin shares her belief that formal scientific knowledge is crucial for effective conservation in India, but one needs to be careful not to be too reductionist in the approach. She cites the cheetah reintroduction programme as an example of the importance of scientific knowledge in conservation. She feels that not enough time is being spent in the field to really understand ecosystems and all their variables. She is of the opinion that fieldwork is not encouraged enough and that there is too much focus on large-scale studies and multi-author papers instead of smaller, more detailed field studies. She believes that more scientific work is needed in conservation, but one needs to be careful and considerate about how one approaches ecological studies to avoid faulty management recommendations. Shahabuddin expresses her preference for small-scale field studies and highlights the challenges of publishing such studies. Researchers, she says, who prefer small-scale studies, face constraints due to the emphasis on large-scale, cross-regional analysis and high-impact journals' preference for such studies. She laments that Western funding priorities are biased towards species in biodiversity hotspots, with little support for ecosystems that are heavily used by people and need conservation. Funding, also, she states, focusses on critically endangered species, rather than management and restoration issues across larger landscapes. She gives the example of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) for the increasing promotion of a species-wise approach over ecosystem-level conservation, and shares that the situation is not improving over time.

(00:28:10) Multidisciplinary work Shahabuddin discusses the challenges of working in teams in India, noting that partnerships and teamwork are not as easy to carry forward as they are in the West. She also explains that cultural differences make it difficult for people with different viewpoints to work together, which spills over into public life. She identifies the education system as a barrier to multidisciplinary work, as it is built in a way that does not allow for the maturation of ideas at a higher level. She suggests that multidisciplinary work should be done in a collaborative framework, and individuals should strengthen their core areas before branching out. She notes that people need to talk to each other more and work in more multidisciplinary frameworks, which is starting to happen. She is unclear if it still exists, but she gives the example of the Biligiri Rangana Hills, where there used to be an effective setup for ecological and anthropological work with Soligas. Scientists, like MD Madhusudan, she says, are working to bring in broader perspectives, even without a formal team. She prescribes training for ecology students that needs to include more social science education to create a better understanding of the social-ecological context of ecological issues.

(00:37:45) Place of local/traditional knowledge in conservation Shahabuddin believes that local knowledge, particularly that of indigenous communities, has not been utilised enough in conservation decision making and action. Stemming from her work in Gadchiroli, she highlights the importance of local knowledge in understanding plant regeneration and seed dispersal systems. She mentions the concept of community reserves and joint protected area management, which were designed to bring local knowledge into conservation efforts but have not been implemented effectively. She also notes that scientists should include local experts in their research, as they are highly dependent on them in the field.

(00:41:40) Not being rooted in one institute Shahabuddin explains that she has not remained rooted in any one institution because of her personal family life and also because she had to leave two previous places of work due to various reasons. She discusses the reasons for leaving Ambedkar University Delhi (AUD), where she built the environment and development programme over five years, and the NGO she founded, Centre for Ecology, Development and Research (CEDAR). Despite the challenges at these two places, she has maintained her research interests, centred around human impacts on the environment and has found that her varied experiences have given her a wider perspective on this topic. She has also met many diverse people who have enriched her experience, brought her greater awareness of the difficulties that people from different backgrounds may face and taught her humility. She feels lucky to have had a good education and aims to spread that knowledge around [interviewee addition post interview: she aims to do so widely, and particularly among younger people]. She notes that working in multiple places has prevented her from becoming complacent and entrenched in one particular environment or ideology. Although she faces some drawbacks of not having job security or a place to call her own, she believes that her research speaks for itself and is valuable wherever she is. [00:43:01 - 00:43:40 - Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details] [00:43:49 - 00:43:57 - Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details]

(00:50:20) Time for book projects Shahabuddin acknowledges that being posted abroad has been productive in terms of writing books, because there are fewer distractions such as teaching and meetings. She has tried to bring out new people's work in her books, specifically people who were finishing up their PhD and had something new to say about conservation. She specifically mentions Rinki Sarkar, TR Shankar Raman and Divya Mudappa. She believes that writing books creates a body of knowledge that is useful for people doing multi-disciplinary work. She feels that if she was part of a formal institute, she would not have been able to concentrate on writing books, given the amount of focussed work it requires. [Archivist's note: the interviewee refers to T.R. Shankar Raman as 'Sridhar']

(00:54:19) Satisfaction in her career Shahabuddin says she finds more satisfaction in the conservation and mentorship work she has done in recent years, compared to research papers that are needed for career advancement. For her, mentoring students and interns and seeing them become active conservationists is particularly fulfilling. In the field, she has empowered local people to become better stewards of their natural resources by involving them in conservation planning, training and asking for their views. She shares her plan to focus on this work more once she moves back to India, but says she will continue research as well. She talks about mentoring several projects, including a successful PhD on woodpeckers by Raman Kumar and shares that she is currently involved in a project on the effect of warming on amphibians in the Kumaon.

(00:59:27) Disappointments in her career Speaking about disappointments in her career, while acknowledging that they are a part of one's work, Shahabuddin mentions the department of environment and development at AUD not having turned out as envisaged. She also shares that mentorship can be challenging, as not all students may perform as expected. Currently, a major challenge for her is obtaining permits from the Forest Department for bird work in Uttarakhand. Shahabuddin misses not having a home institution to nurture and advance her career in conservation and research, but notes that there are few institutions in Delhi that provide an environment free from politics and conducive to long-term work.

(01:03:07) Conservation career advice for young people She advises that while training is important for those interested in conservation, given the current climate crisis, it is also important for young people to get involved in campaigning for forests and climate at a local or national level. [01:02:39 - 01:02:49 - Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details]

(01:05:24) Favourite wildlife moment Her "favourite wildlife moment", she says, was a walk in the Western Ghats where she had a close encounter with a group of gaurs and realised the powerlessness and vulnerability of humans in the face of nature.

Sanjay Gubbi underscores the importance of building models, securing land tenure and fostering a new generation of conservationists, while reflecting on important aspects of his contributions to conservation over the years. While reflecting, he laments industry-driven policies that prioritise economic growth over sustainable development.

Political will and individual activism, Gubbi says, emerged as a crucial factor in conservation from the 1970s to the 2000s, exemplified by figures at both the national and regional levels. He talks about the key role civil society plays in conservation and key changes he feels are needed on its part. Along with corruption, he notes other persisting challenges, such as navigating urban activism's complexities and the structural limitations of the Wildlife Protection Act. Despite progress, gaps in conservation structures persist, prompting him to highlight the need for increased engagement with legislation and revaluation of conservation strategies.

Gubbi goes on to discuss what he sees as failures of conservation in India, such as species focussed conservation and the role of economic demands. Criticisms of civil society's role in conservation, he feels, underscore the need for a more cohesive relationship with the government, culturally sensitive conservation, and prioritisation of conservation funding and outreach strategies. He calls for conservation to shift towards long-term engagement and away from project-based work. Gubbi also touches upon the conservation community's challenge of balancing its social justice advocacy with core conservation responsibilities, emphasising the imperative for informed and sustainable approaches.

(00:00:42) Conservation efforts in India over the past two or three decades, with a focus on building models and securing land tenure for wildlife and building a new generation of conservationists

(00:09:43) Conservation efforts in India, focussing on political will and individual activism

(00:15:17) Social media and the mix-ups it caused in the late 2000s, and economic development at the cost of wildlife conservation

(00:20:04) Conservation structures in India and the Forest Department

(00:23:57) Slow progress in civil society, corruption and unsustainable resource extraction

(00:29:13) Need to define conservation

(00:31:33) Wild Life (Protection) Act, its limitations and the need to strengthen environmental legislation

(00:35:21) Individual activism and government engagement in conservation

(00:40:29) Conservation failures in India, including lack of ecosystem focus and civil society engagement, economics as a wave against conservation

(00:46:06) Conservation and social justice, with criticisms of assuming roles without training

(00:53:18) Impact of conservation efforts and the need for culturally sensitive conservation

(00:58:40) The role of civil society, with a focus on long-term engagement and moving away from project-based work

(01:00:47) Conservation funding and outreach strategies and the urban constituency in conservation

(01:09:59) Challenges in conservation outreach and addressing misinformation

Abstract: R J Ranjit Daniels reflects on his professional experiences in relation to the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, stating that the Act played a pivotal role in unifying conservation efforts across India. However, he says, gaps persist in its implementation, particularly in protecting lesser-known species and addressing human-wildlife conflicts.

He cites success stories that abound, including the revival of charismatic species like the tiger, lion, rhino and elephant, and lesser-known species like Nilgiri tahr and mugger crocodile. At the same time, he highlights that neglected groups such as wetland and migratory birds require more attention. The bias towards charismatic species in conservation efforts has skewed priorities, he says, neglecting less visible but equally important biodiversity.

Integration of various conservation related legislations is deemed necessary by Daniels to address conflicts and involve local communities effectively. Suggestions are given for amending the Wild Life (Protection) Act to address human-animal conflict and invasive species, and making wildlife research more accessible. Valuing biodiversity and traditional knowledge is emphasised, acknowledging the dependence of local people on biodiversity for livelihoods.

Daniels advocates for involving citizens in conservation through citizen science, alongside addressing conservation issues like plastic waste and habitat restoration. (00:00:00) Introduction

(00:00:26) RJ Ranjit Daniels' engagement with the Wild Life (Protection) Act of 1972

(00:06:09) Care Earth Trust's work

(00:11:53) Success in conserving certain species while not being able to conserve some others and gaps regarding environmental legislation

(00:19:41) Gaps in India's conservation priorities and the bias towards charismatic species

(00:26:41) Man and the Biosphere Programme, access and benefit-sharing, people as part of conservation and a desire for inclusivity in the future of conservation

(00:37:54) Integrating conservation acts to address conflicts and the importance of habitat restoration

(00:41:52) Need for Wildlife Board to have more autonomy for biodiversity conservation

(00:46:04) Wild Life (Protection) Act amendments for human-animal conflict and invasive alien species

(00:50:34) Making wildlife research more accessible and affordable in India

(00:56:37) Managing protected areas for research priorities and conservation

(01:02:13) Updating India's wildlife protection schedules for more accurate species listings

(01:07:41) Limitations of market-driven conservation valuation methods and valuing biodiversity and traditional knowledge in conservation efforts

(01:17:50) Daniels' childhood experiences with wildlife and sustainably addressing local people's livelihoods

(01:22:52) Involving local people in conservation efforts through citizen science: an "ecosystem approach"

(01:32:08) Issues of worry: plastic waste, blindly planting trees and not enough importance given to habitat restoration

(01:37:02) Winding up the session

Kamaljit Singh Bawa provides insights into the intersection of his personal journey with India's conservation history over the past 50 years, reflecting on deforestation and habitat degradation, interdisciplinary approaches to sustainability science and the role of institutions in achieving conservation goals. He shares that interdisciplinary focus led to the establishment of institutions like Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), emphasising collaboration in environmental conservation.

Despite successes such as the establishment of powerful civil society organisations and recognition of people's role in resource management through initiatives like the Forest Rights Act, Bawa states that challenges persist. He highlights decline in biodiversity and public investments, and the neglect of ecology and environment in higher education. He also talks about implementation challenges and a lack of vision and progress in biodiversity conservation efforts.

Overall, while there have been strides in conservation leadership and capacity building, the decline in biodiversity and ongoing land use changes, Bawa says, underscores the need for continued efforts and enhanced collaboration to address India's conservation challenges.

(00:00:02) Introduction

(00:02:14) Kamaljit Singh Bawa's initial work and becoming aware about deforestation and habitat degradation

(00:07:50) Interdisciplinary approaches and sustainability science, focussing on institutions and their role in achieving sustainability

(00:15:42) Institution-building that Bawa has been involved with

(00:21:40) Climate and biodiversity crises

(00:26:22) India's conservation journey over the past 50 years: decline in the state of biodiversity, decline in public investments and softening of regulatory regime for managing natural assets

(00:32:33) Successes over the last 50 years, including recognition that people have a role in managing and conserving resources, emergence of powerful civil society organisations and individuals, expansion of higher education and increase in media savviness and interest in international conventions

(00:39:15) Failures over the last 50 years, including inability to bring stakeholders together and learn from others, neglect of ecology in expansion of higher education system, lack of adequate investments in public institutions and a lack of knowledge synthesis

(00:45:37) Sufficiency of increase in human resources to reverse biodiversity decline

In this session, Kamaljit Singh Bawa stresses the urgency of aligning capacity building efforts with the scale of biodiversity conservation challenges in India. Despite four decades of development in conservation biology, he highlights that the understanding of India's biodiversity decline remains limited, with deforestation and climate change cited as primary causes. Bawa also talks about the scarcity of resources for conservation education and training.

Individualism and competitive funding models, he says, impede collective action in conservation. Incorporating local knowledge is deemed crucial, with Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE)'s evolution in integrating it into conservation decisions highlighted.

Bawa says that private philanthropy is expected to play a growing role, but challenges such as organisational capacity persist. He advocates for interdisciplinary collaboration, emphasising participatory approaches and leveraging unique ecosystems.

Successful partnerships between think tanks, academia and government bodies are called for, drawing inspiration from models in other countries such as the United States of America and Costa Rica. Despite challenges, Bawa is optimistic for the future, driven by the growing interdisciplinary movement, technology and hopes for future generations' involvement in conservation efforts. (00:00:00) Introduction

(00:00:31) Capacity building and biodiversity decline and the role of knowledge production

(00:10:58) Need for capacity building in civil society, academia and businesses

(00:15:14) The challenges of fragmented capacity and limited resources, including funding

(00:21:11) Incorporating local knowledge in conservation efforts

(00:27:23) Evaluation of incorporation of different kinds of knowledge into conservation over time

(00:36:33) Conservation efforts, private and individual philanthropy, and environmental issues

(00:44:02) Vision for the future of conservation in India, focussing on interdisciplinary approaches, collaboration and large-scale approaches

(00:51:07) Need for think tanks, academic institutions and the government to be better linked, the co-creating of knowledge, and drawing inspiration from successful examples in other countries

(00:58:28) Reasons for being hopeful about the future of conservation in India: interdisciplinarity, technology and the younger generation

(01:01:24) Winding up the session

Sumaira Abdulali reflects on her family's legacy in conservation, inspired by passionate conservationists, including her father-in-law and uncles. She talks about how she began her conservation work in the late 1990s, focussing on combating sand mining on a beach before shifting to urban projects to be closer to her children. She fought noise pollution in Mumbai, challenging government amendments and helping petition against noise, learning to implement court orders in the process.

In 2006, Abdulali founded the Awaaz Foundation to address noise pollution, leveraging professional expertise. She talks about continuing to tackle sand mining, filing petitions and obtaining court orders, revealing ongoing illegal mining in coastal districts. Despite facing physical attacks, Abdulali says she remained determined to advocate for change, arguing against helipads on private rooftops due to noise pollution.

She highlights Project Tiger as a success of conservation in India and notes the lack of recognition for other species and ecosystems. She discusses sand mining's destructive impact on rivers and beaches and noise pollution's effects on species and human health. Emphasising the importance of education, policy changes, and non-confrontational approaches, Abdulali highlights young people's crucial role in conservation, the significance of diverse voices in advocacy, and the need for women to have a greater role than at present in environmental activism. (00:00:00) Introduction

(00:00:30) Being part of a family that was active in the conservation movement

(00:03:57) Getting into work advocating against sand mining and noise pollution

(00:13:45) Setting up of Awaaz Foundation and what has kept Abdulali going over the years

(00:18:26) Work related to noise pollution from helicopters

(00:21:58) How Abdulali goes about data collection and how people can report noise pollution

(00:23:54) Success of Project Tiger and the importance of also conserving other species and landscapes

(00:27:16) Sand mining and noise pollution's impact on environment and human health

(00:33:27) Social justice and conservation and the impacts of sand mining

(00:38:17) Vision for the future of environmental conservation in India

(00:42:06) Role and place of law in conservation

(00:46:04) What additionally needs to be done differently going forward

(00:51:03) Role of women

(00:56:25) Winding up the session

Amita Baviskar reflects on India's conservation journey over the past 50 years, highlighting the role of people and their responsibilities. She talks about young activists in the 1980s like those from Kalpavriksh-Environmental Action Group, challenging conservation policies to protect forests and advocating for local communities' rights. She highlights the debate on conservation methods in India centring on "fortress conservation" versus inclusive approaches that consider human livelihoods. She critiques the political and economic forces shaping environmental policies, arguing that capitalist exploitation prioritises profit over ecological and social concerns, leading to environmental degradation and societal inequality.

She discusses significant social movements, such as that against the controversial Sardar Sarovar Dam, which displaced thousands of indigenous families and shifted perceptions about development. Further, she reflects on the role of legal bodies and institutions in conservation, noting their vulnerability to political influence and lack of resources. She emphasises the need for sustainable, community-led development models and calls for collective action to address environmental challenges, urging a shift toward ecological justice and the inclusion of marginalised voices in conservation efforts. (00:00:00) Introduction

(00:00:26) Early experiences that shaped Baviskar's approach to conservation, including exposure to those associated with the Chipko movement

(00:04:06) Formation of Kalpavriksh-Environment Action Group and the differing views of members in the early 1980s

(00:09:12) Trek along the Narmada River in 1984, important questions around large dams and how Baviskar's understanding of political ecology was shaped

(00:15:43) Reflections on urban environments

[00:16:06-00:16:31- Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details.]

(00:22:54) Lowered standard of content in news media and retreat of courts from being more public spirited

(00:27:18) Conservation successes and failures, with a focus on Sardar Sarovar Dam

[00:29:02-00:29:41- Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details.]

(00:32:43) Dongria Kond in Niyamgiri Hills and the failure of legal structures and institutions in environmental conservation

(00:44:51) Vision for the future of organic agriculture in India

(00:50:38) Need for collective action to result in action on the ground

(00:53:28) Bourgeois environmentalism

(01:01:50) Finding hope for the future

(01:05:11) Winding up the session

(00:01:14) Parents, interests as a child and studying at Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay Sharachchandra Lele was born in Pune, Maharashtra, but moved around due to his father being in the Navy. He lived in Delhi and Jamnagar before returning to Pune. His mother was a homemaker from a politically active family. He went to IIT Bombay for his undergraduate studies. He says he was not pressured to pursue a specific career. Lele talks about his childhood and what enabled him to develop an interest in hiking and climbing. This interest grew during his time in Pune, where a teacher took him and his classmates on hikes in the Sahyadris, leading to a love of mountaineering. However, it was not until the twelfth grade that he began to appreciate the variety of wildlife in his local environment, particularly birds. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, careers in the environmental field were uncommon and Lele ended up studying engineering. However, attending IIT Bombay allowed him to pursue his interests in mountaineering, bird watching, and wildlife conservation as hobbies. Lele did not consider conservation biology as a career due to a lack of interest in biology, but his interests developed in environmental studies and sustainability. Lele discusses his experience of entering IIT Bombay, when it was relatively easier to clear the entrance exams and pursue hobbies alongside studies. He chose electrical engineering as it seemed like an interesting area he had an aptitude for, but he then shifted to questioning the relevance of a Bachelor of Technology degree and the societal investment in IITs when most of the cohort went abroad, which led to a sense of disillusionment.

(00:11:20) Desire to serve the country/society and developing an interest in environmental issues Lele says he was influenced by his father, who desired to serve the country and was in the Navy. The school he attended, Jnana Prabodhini, also inspired him and instilled the idea of serving the country or society. Attending school in the mid-1970s, he had teachers who supported this idea, and the experience of the emergency of 1975 increased his awareness of political issues. Initially, he did not make a conscious decision to pursue social service. He was inspired by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE)'s landmark 1982 State of India's Environment report, which broadened his understanding of environmentalism beyond wildlife. He decided to pursue a career in Environmental Studies with the goal of contributing to alleviate environmental problems. Initially, he was not focussed on pursuing a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree for academic purposes but to gain a deeper understanding of environmental issues. He realised later on that there was a trade-off between being a conventional academic and feeding knowledge into change on the ground.

(00:18:30) Peers, mentors and time at Indian Institute of Science (IISc) Along with a group of friends, Lele discovered the 1982 State of India's Environment Report and it had a significant impact on their interest in the field. He mentions his friends Sushil Borkar, Jayant Kulkarni and shares details about their and others' career paths related to the environment. Despite being a scattered peer group, they all shared a passion for charting their own path in the field of conservation. Lele describes how he was able to get into IISc in 1984 despite not having the required background in biology, thanks to some faculty members interested in energy and environment issues. He also mentions the Application of Science and Technology to Rural Areas (ASTRA) centre at IISc, which focussed on appropriate technology for rural areas. Taking Madhav Gadgil's advice, Lele was able to join the Master of Science (MSc) programme in computer science and automation under a faculty member interested in energy- DK Subramanian. Lele eventually did his MSc thesis on the environmental impacts of big dams under Subramanian's guidance. In his Master's work, Lele was advised to approach environmental issues from an economics perspective, which he found interesting and accessible despite his engineering background. Interacting with Mangesh Venkatesh Nadkarni at the Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC) on topics such as environmentally extended benefit-cost analysis proved to be fruitful. While he took courses in the ecological sciences programme at IISc, he found it frustrating to not have a cohort or a formal environmental studies programme and he went on to leave IISc. He had initially wanted to work on Indian environmental issues without going abroad, but had to change his decision due to the lack of suitable programmes in India at the time. He laments the fact that even forty years later, IISc still does not have an interdisciplinary environmental studies programme.

(00:27:41) Views on ecology and biology and applying for a PhD degree Lele then explains his experience with learning ecology during his PhD work. He found traditional biology education to be too descriptive and boring, but appreciated a newer approach that focussed on understanding the workings of the biological world. He was drawn to ecology and found it more interesting than his previous brush with biology. Wanting to link questions of energy with the environment for his PhD research, Lele speaks about applying to various universities abroad and choosing University of California (UC), Berkeley's Energy and Resources Group's programme. He was accepted with full support for the first few years and chose UC Berkeley because of the fit with his interests in third world issues.

(00:33:34) Arriving at topic for PhD dissertation and time at UC Berkeley Talking about how he arrived at the topic for his PhD dissertation, Lele speaks about his interest in energy and environment and researching hydropower in the mid-1980s. He was interested in the impact of dams on forests and the value of forests for local communities. He was also influenced by Gadgil's work on the biomass budget of rural Karnataka. Lele describes his experience UC Berkeley as a turning point in his intellectual development. Students were encouraged to straddle the natural and social divide, to work on projects in developing countries and to consider the role of the social sciences in environmental issues. There were many discussions and debates on a host of subjects. The student body was involved in the department's decision-making processes, including faculty recruitment. Lele shares that although his dissertation focussed on household economics, development economics, and property rights, he developed an interest in political ecology after revisiting the landmark book published in 1987, Land Degradation and Society. He notes his limited exposure to the other social sciences, which he looked down upon due to his background in IIT, which, he says, specialised in trashing the humanities and social sciences. In the 1990s, Lele was reflecting on the role of justice in the environmental context. Around the same time, Ramchandra Guha and Joan Martinez Alier introduced the idea of 'environmentalism of the poor'. Listening to a seminar by Guha on the critique of the deep ecology movement and its pristineness-oriented conservationist approach, along with discussions with him, influenced Lele's work on sustainable forest management. His subsequent work explored how access to forest resources influenced village societies' ability to manage them.

(00:46:26) Forests, sustainability and the role of livelihood Lele recalls a pivotal moment during his dissertation work when he was discussing forest management with colleagues and realised there was a clash of ideas regarding what forests should provide to society. He created a matrix to identify what different kinds of forests provide, and the clash between ecological and social definitions of a 'good' forest became clear. This led him to focus on defining and measuring sustainable forest use, which he continued to explore in his later work. His advisor, Richard Norgaard, gave him books to read which triggered his interest in understanding sustainability. Field exposure was crucial in understanding the debates surrounding forests. He tried to understand what forests provide to society and what is maximised under different management systems. RJ Ranjit Daniels, Lele's friend, was working on bird ecology, leading to discussions on conservation. Lele talks about prioritising the livelihood role of the environment in his dissertation and subsequent work.

(00:54:07) Indian academia and interdisciplinarity, collaboration with Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, ISEC and The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI)

After completing his PhD, Lele assumed Indian academia was more open to interdisciplinary work than the US, but found it to be compartmentalised, hindering his job search as he was not an ecologist according to the Centre for Ecological Sciences (CES), IISc, nor an economist, or social scientist. Lele discusses how his work in sustainability led to an opportunity to collaborate with the think tank, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security. Through the Pacific Institute, he applied to the MacArthur Foundation for a grant to work in India in collaboration with Nadkarni at ISEC. He worked on a project focussing on property rights regimes in the Western Ghats in Karnataka. He also had a position at TERI at the time, splitting his time between his own work [interviewee addition: on the MacArthur-funded project] and a project on enterprise-based conservation in Biligiri Rangana (BR) Hills. He shares how collaboration with Kamaljit Singh Bawa on the latter came about.

(01:01:23) Setting up of Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development (CISED) and it being separate from Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE) Lele describes the motivation behind the setting up of CISED in 2001. He had previously found it difficult to find support for his interdisciplinary work in ecology, which he felt was needed to approach environmental problems in a comprehensive way. He had worked at ISEC, a social science institute, and TERI, an interdisciplinary research institute, but found shortcomings in both. He felt that TERI's work was too short-term and donor-driven, while academia was too siloed and lacked relevance to real-world issues. CISED was thus founded to fill this gap, with help from Bawa, Nadkarni and KS Jagadish and financial support from Ford Foundation, aiming to balance relevance and rigour by being both interdisciplinary and long-term in its research. He shares that there were discussions about merging ATREE with CISED and cites reasons that led to the two being kept separate. Lele agrees that he sees himself as a creator of knowledge for action, to be used by practitioners, governments, and the wider public for policy change.

(01:11:32) Merging of CISED and ATREE 2001 to 2009, he says, was an exciting time for CISED. CISED was initially hosted by ISEC, but changes in the board led to transaction costs becoming too high, and it was no longer a good place to host the Institute. ATREE was going through significant changes at the same time, becoming more academic and interdisciplinary. CISED and ATREE then merged, coinciding with ATREE's move towards a more research-oriented and interdisciplinary approach, open to a focus beyond conservation. [Archivist's note: the interviewee and interviewer refer to it as 'TERI' but the summary and index term use the authority record name The Energy and Resources Institute, though it was called the Tata Energy Research Institute at the time being spoken about in the interview] [Archivist's note: the interviewee refers to it as 'the mountaineering institute in Manali' but the index term uses the authority record name Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Mountaineering and Allied Sports (ABVIMAS) though it was called Western Himalayan Mountaineering Institute at the time being spoken about in the interview]

(00:01:14) Developing an understanding of and interest in the environment Sharachchandra Lele highlights several key turning points in his life that shaped his understanding of the environment. These include attending a nature camp during the 12th standard, encountering the State of India's Environment report during his IIT career, and participating in an interdisciplinary programme at University of California, Berkeley [Archivist's note: Lele refers to it as State of Environment report, but the summary has the official name]. His upbringing in a family that engaged in intellectual discussions, his dislike for biology in school, and the influence of his engineering background also played a role in his trajectory. Unlike many of his peers who focussed on engineering-related environmental fields, Lele's exposure to forestry and conservation and Madhav Gadgil at the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) led him to pursue a PhD that incorporated forest ecology and household economics. His continued interest in wider environmental questions, including water, energy, and climate change, is balanced with a persistent focus on forest-based livelihoods and sustainable development.

(00:06:47) Academic and research journey, including ecological aspects of forest use and hydrology Lele describes his academic and research journey, focussing on his thematic areas of study and the evolution of his research interests. He initially transitioned from electrical engineering to environmental studies, with a specific focus on energy conservation in lighting. This led him to pursue a Master's thesis in hydropower and its environmental impacts, combining technology and water energy interface. During his PhD, he explored the ecological aspects of forest use, such as degradation, defining it, and understanding its presence or absence in different villages. Lele's post-doctoral research expanded towards studying the role of property rights in forest usage across Karnataka Western Ghats. He also collaborated with Kamaljit Singh Bawa on enterprise-based conservation in the BR Hills. He also delved into the hydrological impacts of forests, particularly in the Indian context, with Madhav Gadgil, and aimed to fill the gaps in knowledge surrounding this topic. He mentions building an interdisciplinary project on the hydrological impacts of forests for the National Institute of Hydrology and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation-Intergovernmental Hydrological Programme (UNESCO-IHP) from 2003 to 2007 which included collaborating with Jagdish Krishnaswamy from Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE). He learned about field hydrology for the first time.

(00:17:21) Watershed development research His research expanded beyond forests to encompass watershed development in drier parts of the country. In this regard, he mentions KJ Joy and Suhas Paranjape from Society for Promoting Participative Ecosystem Management (SOPPECOM) as visiting fellows to the Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development (CISED). He examined the implications of artificial recharge measures on infiltration, soil moisture retention, and agricultural practices. He discovered the importance of considering the social and technical contexts when analysing the effects of forest management or watershed development on hydrology.

(00:20:21) Focus on urban environments and urban water management

Additionally, Lele recognised the need to shift focus to urban environments due to the environmental challenges faced by rural areas. He acknowledged the disconnect between urban and rural perspectives on sustainability and questioned the notion of urban researchers preaching to rural people about sustainable resource use. This led to his involvement in projects exploring urbanising basins and urban water management, particularly in the case of Bangalore, which heavily relies on distant water sources and groundwater. Lele expresses concerns about unsustainable water management practices in Bangalore, such as excessive energy consumption for water pumping and the proposed construction of a dam that will submerge pristine forests in the Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary. He emphasises the need to address these issues and prioritise local water sources and sustainability in urban water policies. The urbanising basins project started in 2012 and received support from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) for a four-year interdisciplinary study. The team at ATREE consisted of individuals from different backgrounds, including Bejoy Thomas, a development economist, Veena Srinivasan, a hydrologist with training in economics, and Priyanka Jamwal, a water pollution expert. Collaboration among team members helped build a strong understanding of the research question. Before 2012 itself though, Lele noticed changes in rural landscapes and people's desire to move away from agriculture towards urban industrial sectors.

(00:29:47) Environmental justice concerns He had struggled with the question of equity in his dissertation and realised that access to forests was inequitable, favouring those who already had areca nut plantations. Subsequently, examining forest rights allocation revealed inequities across landscapes. Lele also observed the limitations of reducing environmentalism to sustainability and the need to consider justice and equity. Looking at environmental economics more closely over time, he realised that it framed pollution issues in terms of efficiency rather than fairness. He questioned the narrow focus on sustainability and the exclusion of justice concerns. Over time, he explored the intersection of caste, class, gender, and environmental issues and the multiple layers of injustice. Environmental injustice, he found, often correlated with social injustice, with marginalised communities being disproportionately affected and he cites the Narmada project as an example. For Lele, engagement with issues of mining and dams highlighted the widening gap between those discussing justice and sustainability. Political ecology emphasised justice, while sustainability often ignored it. He touches upon conservation efforts being driven by personal well-being and concern for non-human beings. He emphasises the importance of considering ethics, values, and justice in environmental discussions beyond just sustainability.

(00:46:34) Rethinking Environmentalism and different work landscapes In 1994, soon after his dissertation, Lele wrote a short piece for the Pacific Institute's newsletter. This led to the book "Rethinking Environmentalism" in 2018, which explored conservation, justice, and sustainability. Lele shares that his work initially had been primarily focussed on specific regions like Karnataka and the Western Ghats due to strategic considerations and accessibility issues. Language also played a role in his interdisciplinary work. However, his involvement with the implementation of the Forest Rights Act in 2010 allowed him to explore regions like Madhya Pradesh and Jharkhand, where forest rights and degradation were pressing issues. He realised the need to shift his focus to central India, where deprivation, marginalisation, and lack of forest rights were prominent. He attempted this transition in 2012, but got sidetracked by other projects. After completing a water project, he had the opportunity to return to community forest rights work in central India. He shares that he has also conducted work in the Himalayas as part of community-based natural resource management. Despite the desire to work in diverse landscapes, physical limitations like time constraints impact his choices.

(00:51:02) Environmental decision-making and engagement with different sectors and policy spaces Over time, Lele's engagement with environmental decision-making has increased, driven by his applied research and the opportunity to make a difference. He has observed the decision-making process since his PhD days, starting with discussions on forestry projects in the Western Ghats in Uttar Kannada. As his work expanded to the water sector, his interactions expanded to different agencies and ministries. He notes differences between sectors, such as the presence of social science research being more prevalent in the forest sector compared to the water or pollution sector, and the understanding of hydrology and civil engineering required in the water sector. He points out how his engagement in policy spaces has varied depending on the sector and his expertise.

(00:59:35) Knowledge production and disillusionment with academia Lele reflects on the academic space and the disillusionment he experienced. He entered academia with the intention of producing knowledge for change, but found that the focus was primarily on publications and citation metrics. The rat race of publishing and the pressure to meet specific criteria for promotions and selection, coupled with the realisation that academia values quantity over substance led to a sense of disillusionment. This realisation has made him lean more towards activism and prioritise creating change over conforming to academic norms. However, he acknowledges the importance of knowledge production while expressing concern about the current state of academia.

(01:01:52) Approach to his work- temperament, frustrations, preferences, etc. He reflects on his temperament and how it affects his response to criticism and discomfort. He says he thrives on being challenged and has a willingness to learn new things, even if it means plunging into a subject without a complete understanding. He emphasises the importance of asking core questions and focussing on the essence of a subject, rather than getting lost in the details. He talks about the value of interdisciplinarity, and he sees being challenged by others as a fortunate opportunity for growth. He also discusses the frustration he faces in the policy and action space, particularly in dealing with bureaucracy and the lack of meaningful debate. However, he finds satisfaction in working on the ground and collaborating with activists to make a positive impact, despite the challenges of partnering with civil society groups. [01:05:08 - 01:05:14 - Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details]

(00:00:37) Navigating engagement on committees as a non-domain specialist/expert; challenges, opportunities and learnings Sharachchandra Lele discusses his experiences on committees related to coal mining and the Karnataka Elephant Task Force, highlighting the challenges and opportunities he faced as a non-domain specialist. Despite lacking extensive knowledge, he used various strategies to learn and familiarise himself with the subject matter. In the coal mining committee, Lele, an environmental governance person, lacked direct experience in coal mining. To overcome this, he hired an intern to sift through documents and engaged with experts in civil society to gain insights. Visiting coal mines provided valuable firsthand learning. Lele found himself in the middle of the diverse committee, possessing a broad understanding of environmental governance but lacking specialised sector knowledge. This allowed him to approach the work without biases. He emphasises setting aside egos and acknowledging expertise limits for collaboration. Serving on the Karnataka Elephant Task Force, Lele admits not being an elephant specialist. He extensively read, discussed, and gathered information to understand the complexities. Being a non-specialist prevented fixed opinions and promoted openness to new ideas and evidence. He learned the importance of common understanding within committees. Collaboration is hindered when everyone considers themselves experts with complete knowledge and therefore predetermined solutions. Acknowledging limited knowledge enables open-mindedness and collective learning. Examining assumptions about elephant corridors, Lele discovered inaccuracies through data analysis. He emphasises the need for experts to be cautious about preconceived ideas and receptive to alternative viewpoints. Revising opinions based on evidence and open dialogue is crucial. [00:11:18 - 00:12:14 - Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details]

(00:12:28) Value of avoiding preconceived/expert notions in committee work Lele's experience in committees like the Elephant Task Force and the coal mining committee highlights the danger of experts holding onto preconceived notions. His multidisciplinary perspective as a social scientist was valued, emphasising the need for diverse committees. He credits Raman Sukumar for recognising the importance of a social scientist on the Task Force. Lele advocates for approaching committee work with an open mind, setting aside expert status to foster collaboration and consider alternative arguments and suggestions.

(00:15:34) Committee engagement- potential for change amidst politics and challenges Committees can provide an opportunity for change, although scepticism and caution are necessary. The government may cherry-pick recommendations, but there is still potential for positive impact. The setting up of committees is often influenced by politics, and terms of reference must be carefully examined and negotiated. In this regard, Lele gives the example of the Forest Rights Act committee set up by Jairam Ramesh. Even with good recommendations, reports can end up ignored or discarded due to various political factors. However, participating in committees remains a potential avenue for bringing about change. Recommendations should be crafted to minimise counterproductivity. Further, declining committee participation may result in the appointment of less favourable alternatives.

Part 2 (00:00:10) Challenging committee limitations and driving environmental change through public engagement and political advocacy Lele acknowledges the limitations of committees in driving environmental change and emphasises the need for careful examination of terms of reference and avoiding counterproductive actions. He acknowledges the influence of political factors and conflicting interests in environmental decision-making and stresses the importance of public pressure, civil society efforts, and lobbying for policy change. Lele urges scientists to make their knowledge accessible to the public, engage with civil society activists and political leaders, and communicate scientific information in a way that is understandable to non-experts. He challenges the assumption that the state will automatically act upon scientific knowledge and argues that decision-making is often driven by vested interests rather than objective truth. He calls for a critical examination of how knowledge can effectively bring about change and suggests exploring alternative channels beyond traditional committee structures. Engaging with civil society, building relationships with political leaders, and challenging the status quo are seen as important avenues for driving environmental action. He emphasises the need for scientists to be adaptable and vigilant in navigating the political landscape to ensure that knowledge is effectively utilised for positive environmental outcomes. He calls for a broader understanding of the state's role, considering the possibility of an anti-democratic setup that prioritises the interests of the powerful over marginalised communities and the environment.

(00:06:53) Activism in applied research In the realm of applied research, Lele says, scholars must go beyond publishing papers and reports. They need to recognise their role as activists and engage actively to bring about change. Merely assuming that knowledge alone will lead to action is naive. Scholars must become advocates and find ways to engage with agents of change, going beyond traditional academic boundaries. In societies with power imbalances, scholars have a responsibility to take on an activist role and ensure their message reaches a wider audience.

(00:10:07) Enhancing training for scientists in applied fields The training of scientists often lacks differentiation, failing to address the specific skills and responsibilities required in applied fields like environment and conservation biology. This leads to a limited understanding of the role and the necessary skill sets. To address this issue, it is essential to provide explicit training in interdisciplinary research, communication, consultancy, time management, and policy engagement. Consistently incorporating these skills and knowledge into applied Masters or PhD programmes is crucial. Additionally, scholars can benefit from lessons on serving on committees and understanding their dynamics, including tasks like writing minutes. The importance of such training is exemplified by Lele's personal experience with John Holdren's guidance in 1987, highlighting the need for comprehensive and tailored training programmes in applied disciplines.

(00:15:02) Bridging the gap between potentially impactful knowledge and knowledge that has meaningful impact in applied research There exists a gap between potentially impactful knowledge and knowledge that actually has an impact. Reports and research, no matter how well-written and grounded, can be disregarded or overlooked, especially within governmental systems. Bridging this gap requires researchers to engage with decision-makers, collaborate with civil society groups, and actively disseminate their findings. Language and accessibility also play a crucial role in the impact of knowledge. Translating reports into local languages and conducting public hearings [interviewee addition: the latter too ought to be in local languages] can increase awareness and engagement. However, taking the example of the Karnataka Knowledge Commission, Lele says that such efforts may be resisted and viewed as beyond one's mandate. In conducting research, Lele says, it is important to distinguish between relevance and salience. Researchers should address the most pressing and debated questions within a specific context, rather than solely pursuing their personal interests or expertise. Furthermore, researchers should consider the practical applications and engagement with theoretical debates in academia to ensure their work has a meaningful impact. Balancing academic publishing requirements with public dissemination is challenging, given the pressure to publish and the prevailing publication game in academia. Lele reflects on the fragmentation of the environmental movement, cautioning against professionals retreating into isolated silos and careers. He stresses the importance of interdisciplinary applied work, engaging with policymakers and the public to bring about significant change.

Part 3 (00:00:12) Rethinking academic publishing, generalisability and context-specific knowledge Lele acknowledges the importance of rigour and suggests that publishing in academic journals [interviewee addition: publishing in academic journals in theory] serves the purpose of ensuring the quality of applied research. However, the reality of publishing, including the limitations of the peer review process, prompts the consideration of alternative mechanisms of peer review that emphasise content and impact rather than the number of papers published. He proposes the creation of new institutional spaces, citing Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE) and Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development (CISED) as examples, that measure scholarly contributions differently. Lele goes on to address the notion of generalisability in academic knowledge. He points to biases within academia, such as the bias against publishing case studies from certain regions and the demand for research with global applicability. This trend, driven by technological advancements and the dominance of scholars from the global North, he says, perpetuates a new form of colonialism, where researchers from privileged backgrounds dictate knowledge about distant places without fully understanding local contexts. He cautions against the excessive pursuit of generalisability, urging scholars to maintain a balance between particular and general knowledge. He emphasises the need to be cautious when drawing broad conclusions from specific case studies. The prevailing trend of favouring glossy world maps in prestigious journals is criticised as a false representation of knowledge, disregarding the relevance, usefulness, and real-world value of research. Lele highlights the danger of pushing generalisability to extreme levels and calls for a revaluation of academia's emphasis on global trends. An example of a study on pollution in the Vrishabhavathi river illustrates how an integrative and cross-disciplinary approach was initially rejected by journals due to being perceived as a mere case study. However, the study's insights on industrial pollution in urbanising rivers were relevant to many developing countries, challenging the notion that such research lacks originality or broader significance.

(00:09:18) Perils of biased and irrelevant academic work using restoration science as an example Lele highlights the dangers associated with biased and irrelevant academic work, particularly in the field of restoration science. The focus on global solutions and the production of maps showcasing restoration potential often overlooks the underlying normative concerns, such as the urgent need to address fossil fuel burning and reduce carbon footprints. He criticises the mapping of restoration potential for its limited understanding of local realities and its potential to drive counterproductive policies. Lele calls for a critical examination of the restoration debate, emphasising the importance of accurate and contextually relevant research to avoid detrimental consequences, such as displacement of communities and the misuse of agricultural land.

(00:12:36) Influence of funding on research Funding plays a crucial role in shaping research agendas, and donor politics and fashions greatly influence the work that researchers undertake. While there is room to seek out donors with more progressive politics, larger donors like Ford Foundation or MacArthur Foundation may have their own agendas. In the context of India, foreign donors have been driven away, leaving a gap filled by national-level philanthropy, often individual philanthropists lacking professional expertise. This shift towards individual and corporate social responsibility (CSR) funding prioritises short-term projects and infrastructure rather than long-term, interdisciplinary, and socially relevant research. The change in funding direction hampers critical work that raises uncomfortable questions about societal issues.

(00:16:06) Donor politics and funding shifts- implications for research The field of research funding is complex and diverse, with different donors having their own ideological positions. Private donors like Ford Foundation or MacArthur Foundation, as well as Scandinavian donors, support work aligned with their ideologies. Bilateral donors, on the other hand, are heavily influenced by state policies. For instance, climate adaptation funding has been favoured over mitigation to avoid uncomfortable questions about domestic actions at the donor country's end. The Canadian donor, International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Lele says, initially supported research in developing countries independently but now acts as a manager for funding disbursed by bilateral agencies. The trend of larger grants with high transaction costs hampers research quality. Hidden agendas and the desire to redirect funding back to the donor country further complicate the research funding landscape.

(00:00:37) Challenges in producing impactful knowledge Lele discusses the process of producing impactful knowledge and the challenges involved. He emphasises the importance of starting with a problem-driven approach rather than being driven solely by theory or methods. However, defining the problem itself becomes a dilemma, as it can be influenced by those in power and may lack broader relevance. Lele gives the example of his work on forests and the need to understand the relationship between forests, livelihoods, and sustainability. He also highlights the significance of being in the right place at the right time and taking advantage of windows of opportunity for making a real impact. Lele further illustrates his experiences with research on pollution in rivers and heavy metal concentrations. He faced challenges such as denial from authorities and resistance to change. Although his research had some impact in terms of raising awareness and initiating limited action, the long-term steps he recommended were not implemented due to reluctance and pressures from industry and politics. Additionally, Lele mentions his involvement in drafting a water policy for Karnataka. Despite extensive work and consultations, the final document was disregarded and a diluted version was eventually produced, reflecting the challenges of bringing about change in sectors with high stakes and vested interests. He acknowledges that pursuing impactful research requires building collaborations and networks with practitioners, activists, and other academics. However, this can divert time and energy from conducting research itself. On the other hand, if researchers solely respond to problem definitions set by the state or other powerful actors, the resulting research may not address the most crucial issues.

(00:11:14) Significance of interdisciplinary approaches in addressing environmental challenges

Lele emphasises the importance of interdisciplinary work in addressing environmental problems effectively. He believes that environmental issues have both biophysical and social dimensions, and to contribute meaningful knowledge towards solving these problems, one needs to consider all aspects. Lele suggests a softer form of interdisciplinarity, where one discipline is informed by another. For instance, a social science study can be ecologically informed, or an ecological study can be socially informed. This approach allows researchers to immerse themselves in the relevant literature and focus on key variables while exploring the political economy, sociology, or [interviewee addition: ecological] knowledge aspects of the problem. Lele also highlights the need to challenge the notion of a single truth in ecology and recognise the different lenses through which stakeholders view the environment. He urges scientists to be socially informed, considering the values and stakes society has in the problem. He also discusses the importance of bridging disciplinary gaps and suggests that teams with both disciplinary specialists and bridging actors can create a holistic problem definition and facilitate meaningful collaboration. He goes on to share that in his water work, a successful and strong disciplinary team was sensitive to other disciplines. However, in other cases, such as when working on forests, it was challenging to build teams due to mismatched research interests. He adds that the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE) PhD programme aims to produce individuals who can bridge disciplinary gaps, with a focus on fostering a bridging role among graduates.

(00:21:46) Contextualising forest and water sectors Lele explains the contextual challenges and distinctions between the forest and water sectors. The forest sector's long colonial history and vested interests within the forest bureaucracy hinder alternative governance approaches. In contrast, the citizen-driven aspect of the water sector, coupled with the borewell revolution, allows for more direct engagement. However, the entrenched irrigation bureaucracy and the perception of the water sector as highly engineered pose barriers for social scientists. Lele observes that social scientists tend to gravitate more towards forest-related questions, perceiving the water sector as more science and technology-oriented. Interdisciplinary collaboration and assembling multi-disciplinary teams prove more difficult in the water sector.

(00:26:37) Value neutral science in conservation biology and conservation Lele discusses the challenges of conducting value-neutral science in the field of conservation biology. The discipline inherently adopts a mission-oriented approach towards biodiversity conservation, making neutrality difficult. The goal of conservation sets a predetermined value for the research, limiting critical questioning of goals and assumptions. Additionally, Lele emphasises the need to understand the diverse values and stakes that society holds in ecosystems, beyond just conservation. Conservation biology should acknowledge the multiplicity of values and engage in decision-making processes that consider various perspectives. Lele also highlights the importance of recognising that conservation is a social value and not a scientific given. Science can inform specific aspects of conservation, but it is society that determines the values and priorities associated with conservation efforts. He says that the field of conservation biology needs to be more self-reflective and critically examine its assumptions and goals to ensure that its research aligns with the broader needs and values of society. Lele also discusses the power associated with the label of "value-neutral science" in the field of conservation. Scientists often want to maintain the perception of objectivity and use the label to assert authority in policy discussions. However, Lele questions whether scientists truly understand and acknowledge the inherent values embedded in conservation work. The discussion around value neutrality is conflicted within the scientific community, and there has been limited exploration of these issues. This conflict is not unique to the Indian context but exists globally. Some scientists resort to justifications such as nature having intrinsic value to maintain the appearance of value neutrality.

(00:42:51) Socially relevant biology

Lele emphasises the importance of socially relevant biology and urges biologists to consider the multiple values that society holds regarding biological systems. He suggests that scientists should openly acknowledge the specific values they are addressing and strive for multivalent science that explores trade-offs and synergies among different values. Additionally, he highlights the need for biologists to be explicit about their chosen stakeholders and consider whether they are privileging certain groups or neglecting underprivileged stakeholders. He encourages a shift towards studying neglected values and voices, such as the consequences of human deaths caused by tigers. He underscores the need for conscious choices in research directions to address the imbalances and promote a more inclusive and equitable approach to scientific inquiry.

(00:48:27) Subjectivity in ecological research Lele acknowledges that scientists, including ecologists, can become emotionally attached to their values and hypotheses, leading to biases in their research. He highlights that emotional attachments to values, such as justice or biodiversity, can have a greater impact on scientific objectivity than attachments to specific hypotheses. Ecologists, he says, need to grapple with subjectivity and recognise the indeterminacy of ecosystems, similar to how social scientists engage with the positionality of the researcher.

(00:52:32) Democratisation of research and decision-making and the Master's course in ATREE in Conservation Practice The concept of democratisation in the context of research and decision-making processes is discussed. Lele argues that while India has a representative democracy, it remains inadequate due to social differentiation and the marginalisation of certain voices. He suggests the need for grassroots-level democracy and greater democratic accountability of institutions involved in research and policy-making. He emphasises the importance of incorporating public input and feedback into the process and highlights the elitism that exists within the scientific community. Lele proposes mechanisms such as public hearings, advisory boards with diverse perspectives, and engaging with practitioners, activists, and non-scientists to ensure social relevance and accountability in scientific work. He gives the example of having a diverse Advisory Board for the Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development (CISED). Further, he calls for expanding societal accountability beyond the government and recognising the importance of engaging with the wider public and non-scientific stakeholders. Lele reflects on his personal experience with respect to the Master's course in Conservation Practice offered by ATREE. He mentions that it provides an opportunity to bring interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary work into teaching, exposing students to various issues, skills, and approaches that can influence conservation and environmental outcomes. He expresses a desire to broaden the focus from conservation to environmental practice and says that this expansion may occur in the future.

(00:59:57) Rethinking undergraduate education for social change Lele discusses the need for undergraduate programmes with broader training, as traditional university setups often provide narrow specialisation. He mentions the emergence of private universities with liberal arts programmes that expose students to a wider range of disciplines. He emphasises the importance of a broad foundation for those aspiring to work for social change, highlighting that knowledge production is just one avenue for creating change. He suggests that students should have exposure to a variety of fields to inform their future paths and enable them to navigate the inherent values in their chosen fields.

(01:02:58) Satisfaction from producing knowledge

He goes on to speak about the satisfaction derived from producing relevant and impactful knowledge in different contexts. He mentions the mapping of forest rights in the Western Ghats, which continues to be relevant in conservation, development, and forest management debates. He also highlights his engagement with communities in Central India, assisting them in claiming their forest rights and utilising science to complement their ecological knowledge. Additionally, he says he found satisfaction in interdisciplinary work on the Arkavathi and Noyyal rivers, linking social and natural aspects, despite the policy implications still unfolding.

(01:07:53) Understanding scientists' exposure to social aspects and the challenges of building dialogue in conservation Lele is interested in studying scientists' exposure to social aspects in conservation and the challenges of building dialogue, particularly in polarised contexts. He seeks systematic exploration to understand the reasons behind these difficulties, aiming for a comprehensive approach beyond personal opinions.

Ghazala Shahabuddin reflects on challenges persisting in conservation in India, including bureaucratic hurdles in obtaining permissions and enforcing laws, prompting a call for an inclusive approach that considers social and cultural factors.

She emphasises the importance of integrating social sciences into conservation, advocating for community-based initiatives and holistic studies that examine the relationship between forests and people. Despite successes in saving species and establishing Protected Areas in India, she cites habitat destruction and biodiversity loss as pressing concerns that remain.

While India has made strides in protecting endangered species like tigers and elephants, she alludes to failures in leveraging public support and addressing habitat destruction. Further, she is critical of the limited role of science in wildlife conservation strategies, giving the example of recent cheetah reintroduction efforts, citing a lack of holistic planning.

Shahabuddin stresses the involvement of local communities in decision-making and management of Protected Areas. While concerns linger over restoration efforts and relaxing laws for infrastructure development, she hopes for public involvement and suitable political leadership to ensure a sustainable future. (00:00:00) Introduction

(00:00:30) Personal experiences and reflections: Protected Areas, multidisciplinary thinking about wildlife conservation and social and cultural factors

(00:07:37) Community-based conservation, importance of single site studies and a holistic view of conservation

(00:11:15) Getting science into policy-making on conservation

(00:13:34) Integrating social sciences into conservation efforts

(00:19:04) Divide between social scientists and biologists

(00:22:16) Conservation successes: saving species from extinction, land under nature and conservation, environmental governance and saving flagship species

(00:27:54) Conservation failures: lack of popular support, Forest Department operations and governance issues

(00:30:52) Failures in wildlife conservation, including lack of research on sustainable use and implementation of science

(00:36:08) Conservation science and management in India, need to focus outside protected areas as well and importance of local engagement

(00:43:59) Push for restoration

(00:46:34) Worries for the future of conservation in India, including relaxation of environmental laws, infrastructure development and air pollution

(00:56:14) Hope for the future of conservation in India, including younger leaders, cultural links to wildlife, small town naturalists and civil society participation

(01:01:31) Winding up the session

Asmita Kabra discusses her journey in conservation, starting with her work on the Kuno National Park, and narrates the establishment of Samrakshan Trust. She reflects on the evolution of her thinking, from initial skepticism to a more inclusive view of conservation. Kabra also discusses her academic journey, including her PhD on the Kuno resettlement, and her involvement in designing interdisciplinary courses at Ambedkar University. She highlights the importance of interdisciplinary education and the role of fieldwork in shaping students' understanding of conservation issues. Kabra identifies legal successes in conservation such as the Forest Rights Act and the creation of protected areas, as significant achievements. She highlights the limitations of binary thinking in conservation and highlights the need for more inclusive approaches. Kabra underscores the importance of dialogue and democracy in conservation action and reflects on hopes and concerns for the future of wild species and spaces in India.

(00:00:36) Interest in research and development, community-oriented surveys on village resettlement, Samrakshan Trust and its objectives, initial observations, and challenges at Kuno National Park

(00:10:58) Influence of fieldwork on personal research, equipping frontline conservation workers, education and writing as tools of conservation action, growing conservation consciousness

(00:18:24) Transition from teaching economics to conservation, PhD on the Kuno resettlement, importance of interdisciplinary education and fieldwork, challenges and successes of implementing interdisciplinary programs at Ambedkar University

(00:32:49) Legal achievements in conservation action in India, limitations of binary thinking in conservation research and action, reconciling thought and action, need for evidence-based solutions

(00:44:04) Decolonizing approaches to conservation, incorporating local perspectives and realities into conservation strategies, democratizing forest governance, crafting site-specific strategies

(00:52:18) Understanding non-formal everyday politics and adaptations in conservation, limitations of prioritizing conservation of flagship species, importance of recognizing plurality of co-habitations in India

Lalitha Vijayan discusses her involvement in India's conservation journey since 1977, particularly the Silent Valley movement where she supported VS Vijayan in preparing a report on Silent Valley, highlighting its ecological importance which was instrumental in its designation as a national park.

She pursued her PhD on insectivorous birds under Dr. Salim Ali, focusing on ecological isolation. She details her fieldwork challenges, including instances of harassment and wildlife encounters while also highlighting the pervasive male chauvinism in the field. However, she also notes the encouraging rise of female wildlife enthusiasts and researchers in recent years.

Vijayan discusses working on wetland ecosystems in Keoladeo National Park, and species studies in the Andamans and the Western Ghats. She also highlights her role in the establishment of the Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History (SACON) in Coimbatore. She emphasizes the importance of sustainable development and the role of conservation movements in influencing environmental policies.

(00:00:28) Involvement in the Silent Valley movement, initiatives by the Silent Valley movement, PhD work, interactions with Salim Ali, declaration of Silent Valley as a national park

(00:09:12) Relevance of conservation activism through movements, mentorship by Salim Ali, growing importance of conservation vocabulary, role of Salim Ali in the Silent Valley movement, research questions and analysis in thesis, assistance from scholars at IISc

(00:22:08) Challenges faced by females in conservation fieldwork, male chauvinism in conservation research and action, improvement in the involvement of women in the field

(00:34:35) Post-PhD work, involvement in wetland ecosystems project in Keoladeo National Park, participation in the establishment of SACON, choice of location for SACON, funding and grants at SACON

(00:46:08) Species study of Andaman teal, impact assessment of human interference on bird and plant communities in the Western Ghats, data sampling, analysis and findings

Lalitha Vijayan discusses her conservation work, including studies in Sikkim from 2004 to 2008, focusing on fauna and flora. She highlights the importance of protecting unaltered habitats and promoting eco-tourism.

She details a 2000-2002 project on inland wetlands, funded by UNDP, and discusses its findings. She emphasizes the sustainable use of wetlands and the need for local community involvement in their conservation. She also discusses the challenges of pesticide use in farm fields and its impact on wetlands and highlights the need for urgent conservation efforts in this regard.

Vijayan also reflects her experience of participating in the state wildlife board of Pondicherry. She describes her involvement in an arboretum project in Tamil Nadu.

She discusses the establishment of SACON in 2006 and its projects on sustainable development. She stresses the importance of sustainable development, proper implementation of policies and community engagement in conservation efforts.

(00:00:28) Fauna studies in Sikkim, findings and recommendations, participation in inland wetlands conservation initiative, analysis and findings

(00:12:20) Recommendations by the inland wetlands conservation initiative, challenges in wetland conservation, limitations of the oversight of the state wetlands

(00:20:06) Participation in the State Wildlife Board in Pondicherry including challenges, arboretum project in Chennai, collaboration with Tamil Nadu Forest Department, contributions of the arboretum

(00:33:47) Involvement in a manuscript, participation in public awareness and educational initiatives, sustainable development projects by SACON, funding and impact assessment of projects at SACON

(00:47:28) Restoration of Shola forests, rapid loss of habitats and forests, need for better implementation of conservation policies, challenges of human-wildlife conflict, importance of sustainable development

(00:57:42) Properly implementing policies and strategizing through scientific tools, rigorous commitment of officials and community involvement in conservation efforts

Suprabha Seshan speaks about her focus on rainforest plant species conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration ecology, emphasizing the importance of local community involvement. She also highlights the role, vision, and initiatives of GBS while also sharing about her involvement with the organization. She highlights the significant loss of Western Ghats rainforests due to industrial farming and the need for community-driven conservation. She also underscores the need to reintroduce threatened species. Suprabha reflects on the different forms of knowledge in conservation, including formal, scientific, indigenous, and experiential. She discusses the challenges of integrating modern ecological science with traditional local knowledge and highlights the need for a holistic approach that values all forms of knowledge and experience. She expresses concern about the rapid extinction of species and the impact of large-scale infrastructural projects on the environment as well as the weakening of forest rights. She emphasizes the interconnectedness of ecological and human health and the need for education that fosters this connection.

(00:00:40) Personal conservation strategy, GBS's rehabilitation objectives, personal involvement and initial experiences at GBS

(00:05:45) Vision and mission of GBS, challenges of integrating modern ecological science with traditional local knowledge systems, need for inclusive ecological vocabulary

(00:15:31) Importance of conversations and mutual learning between varied knowledge systems, engaging with the locale and its inhabitants

(00:19:00) Reflections on conservation strategies in India, recognition of community-driven conservation and local knowledge systems, weakening of forest rights, impact of large-scale infrastructural projects

(00:26:28) Ecological Restoration Alliance- India and its objectives, limitations of monoculture, decentralization of agriculture, interconnectedness of ecological and human health, need for education to support ecological consciousness

(00:35:41) Challenging promotion of infrastructural advancement at the expense of ecological disruption, focus on community-based conservation efforts, extinction of species and its impact on the biosphere, appreciation of cohabitation with nature

HN Kumara speaks about his influences during childhood and education that led to a career in wildlife research with a focus on primates and conservation. He begins by mentioning his family history and then narrates several interactions with wildlife in his native Chikmagalur, particularly an encounter with a tiger, that shaped his interest in wildlife and the natural world. He also mentions other influences such as book and social circles that influenced his interest. He then speaks about his teaching career and the later switch from teaching to wildlife research as he joined a project studying mammals, specifically primates such as the lion-tailed macaque with Dr. Mewa Singh. He reflects on his experiences carrying out fieldwork and a rising consciousness about conservation issues. He speaks about pursuing a PhD without a Master's degree and mentions choosing his PhD research topic.

(00:00:01) Childhood, schooling and family background

(00:04:30) Tiger sighting during childhood and other exposure to wildlife

(00:10:30) Influence of teachers and books on Kumara's interest in biology

(00:16:28) Exposure to wildlife and protected areas during undergraduate college and later teaching

(00:24:01) Career choice of teaching and choice to study Life Sciences

(00:27:50) Choice to switch career to wildlife research and influences of family

(00:33:18) Reflection on exposure to conservation during Anaimalai Hills project, including reflection on personal journey and experiences

(00:42:58) Experience collecting data during fieldwork during the Anaimalai Hills project

(00:52:50) Career shift from teaching to studying primates and mammals in Anaimalai Hills, projects in collaboration with the Forest Department, and interactions with other research groups in the area

(00:58:22) Developing an interest in conservation during the years working in Anaimalai Hills

(01:01:46) Studying slender loris in India

(01:08:19) Experience of the first slender loris sighting in Dindigul district

(01:14:16) Conservation efforts for lion-tailed macaques in India

(01:21:06) PhD research on mammals outside protected areas in Karnataka, India

HN Kumara speaks about his PhD research, collaborating with the forest department in Karnataka and conservation efforts, particularly lobbying to declare parts of forests as protected areas. He details how he chose to study mammals outside protected areas, and further notes his sustained efforts to involve the forest department in his research. He speaks about research methodology, speaking about surveys and interviews of local villagers to collect data on hunting practices of mammals. He reflects on his role in lobbying for forest restoration and conservation of forest areas and animals by declaring a region as a wildlife sanctuary or a national park, touching upon specific instances.

Time-stamped section headings

(00:00:01) Selecting PhD research topic of mammals outside protected areas, reflecting on conservation of mammals in India, particularly outside protected areas

(00:10:03) Forest department collaboration for wildlife research and conservation

(00:16:15) Lion-tailed macaque population in India, with focus on ecology of the species outside protected areas

(00:21:15) Hunting practices of mammals and primate by local population in Karnataka with a focus on religion and food practices and data collection in two locations

(00:28:20) Engaging with forest department officers during PhD research

(00:35:18) Conducting surveys on slender loris and lion-tailed macaques and challenges of conducting surveys

(00:40:49) Interaction with local communities and villages during research in India

(00:47:00) Wildlife population survey methods and findings in Karnataka, India, with specific mention of wolves, slender loris, and flying squirrels

(00:53:01) Reflections on ecology research, academia, and ownership of data, focussing on a survey supported by the forest department

(00:59:14) Conservation efforts in collaboration with forest department for a 300 sq km area in Karnataka which eventually led to the formation of Sharavathi Valley Lion-Tailed Macaque (LTM) Sanctuary

(01:04:22) Understanding local issues in the area revolving around Garcinia gummi-gutta; finding solutions involving village forest communities

(01:07:01) Forest department planting Acacia species in barren land earlier used to collect manure to support paper mills in North Karnataka; Restoration of the barren land to ensure connectivity of forest.

(01:08:11) Summarising 20 years of effort in the area - conservation reserve, power line insulation, shifting to oven system over use of firewood, sharing a list of plant species with Forest Department, conversion of nurseries for restoration work.

(01:11:01) People in sanctuary safeguarded against relocation and supported. Including locals in the work.

(01:12:32) Details of data from study to back up the case for the reserve - Lion-tailed Macaque being a schedule-I species and an endangered species.

(01:15:48) Conservation being a continuous process; details and impact of film on the work done.

(01:19:09) Wolf population in Karnataka, India, and lobbying that led to the formation of Chincholi Wildlife Sanctuary

(01:27:58) Conservation efforts for tigers in India, focusing on lobbying and scientific research

(01:35:24) Conservation policy and continuing survey of loris in Tamil Nadu

HN Kumara speaks about his work after PhD, funding challenges, and evolving research interests with a move towards conservation research. He speaks about a conference in Uganda where networking allowed him to secure funds to carry out work on the lion tailed macaques. He elaborates on his evolving and widening research interests and his role at SACON. He elaborates his work on NTFPs and on his sustained collaboration with the forest department regarding various conservation projects, reflecting on this relationship and its importance for conservation work. He also mentions the balance between conservation efforts and government policy shifts. The interview ends with HN Kumara recollecting two significant encounters with wildlife during his years as a wildlife researcher.

(00:00:01) Work after PhD and experiences applying for funding for projects to study the lion-tailed macaques as an independent researcher

(00:09:18) Conservation efforts for lion-tailed macaques in Sharavati

(00:12:14) Studying NTFPs and devising strategies for extraction and use of NTFPs, and sustainable forest management in a local context

(00:20:34) Power cable insulation for the conservation efforts of mammals in a forest, and challenges of carrying out such work

(00:25:56) Career after young scientist fellowship at NIAS, move to SACON, and research with a focus on conservation

(00:32:11) Widening research interest and work on animals such as elephants in South Bengal, conservation efforts in Meghalaya, and work on Nicobar long-tailed macaque

(00:40:30) Reflection on influences that shaped research interests and funding challenges

(00:45:17) Navigating funding constraints in conservation efforts; Working with forest department, focusing on persistence and relationship-building

(00:48:47) Interacting with the various officers in Forest Department and obtaining a deep understanding of the structure and system

(00:51:28) Importance of patience and optimism in dealing with the Forest Department

(00:57:52) Balancing conservation efforts with people's needs in protected areas, and reflection on conservation world-view

(01:04:51) Language's role in conservation efforts in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu

(01:08:55) Porcupine burrows used by pythons and research on python population dynamics and conservation efforts

(01:11:38) Advice to deal with Forest Department - strong base and communication skills to convince them and understand issues faced by Forest department and provide suggestions to deal with it.

(01:21:00) Type of data that drives decision making in Forest Department or Conservation - like sharing and providing prescriptions to deal with issues.

(1:23:40) Reflection on important contributions - Lion-tailed Macaque because of the intersection of science and different levels of species conservation and management.

(01:29:15) Advice to young naturalists

(01:32:08) Recollection of memorable encounters with wildlife

Prachi Mehta talks about her early years, from childhood to her Master's in Life sciences. She did her schooling from Amulakh Vidyalaya (today: Shree Amulakh Amichand Bhimji Vividhlakshi Vidyalaya), her 11th and 12th (called junior college in the state of Maharashtra), and her BSc in Life Sciences degree from Ramnarain Ruia College, Mumbai and her Master's in Life Sciences degree from Mumbai University.

Her family moved to Mumbai from Karachi due to the India-Pakistan partition. She recounts her family's cultural influences on her interests and early experiences in Mumbai that led to a career in wildlife. Her father was an IAS officer and her mother was a homemaker, and she lived in a joint family. She notes that she was always interested in nature and that on family holidays, the natural world was what often fascinated her.

She speaks about the role of nature clubs and birdwatching at Ruia College and the astronomy club at St. Xavier's College Mumbai in fostering her interest in science and nature. Her interest in birdwatching and activities with the nature club led her to apply for a PhD at the Wildlife Institute of India once she finished her master's degree in the mid-1990s. (00:00:54) Early life in Mumbai, family culture, and first interest in science

(00:04:55) College life at Ruia College, Mumbai, nature clubs, astronomy interests, the role of the family in supporting nature activities

[Archivist's Note: Mehta refers to her college simply as Ruia College. The college's official name is Ramnarain Ruia College. The division of the college that enrolls, teaches, and administrates the 11th and 12th standard curriculum—from where Mehta studied in those two years—is called Ramnivas Ruia Junior College.]

(00:09:54) Reasons to pursue higher education in life sciences and birdwatching, and setting up Prithvi Nature Club

[Archivist's Note: Mehta refers to Sanjay Gandhi National Park. The park has gone through several name changes. In 1974 with was called Krishnagiri National Park and later renamed to Borivali National Park. It was renamed Sanjay Gandhi National Park in 1981 in memory of Sanjay Gandhi, the son of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.]

(00:15:00) Application for a project on Giant Squirrels by Renee Borges; relationship with Renee Borges, project,

(00:17:07) Successful application for PhD at Wildlife Institute for India, applying for a PhD

(00:20:30) College influences led to a pursuit of the life sciences and nature

(00:21:47) Childhood interest in science and wildlife; the trip to the USA

(00:24:27) School experiences that led to an interest in wildlife; aptitude test in school

(00:26:30) Family holidays to Matheran and recollections around nature on those holidays

(00:27:20) Family, education, and cultural influences. School, languages and thinking in languages, library, pets at home, mother's heritage, monsoon birdwatching

[Archivist's Note: Mehta refers to her school name as Amulakh Vidyalaya. The school's name as of 2024 is Shree Amulakh Amichand Bhimji Vividhlakshi Vidyalaya]

(00:36:03) Personal interests, education, and career goals: Childhood aspirations of pursuing a career at NASA and an Archeology, influences of magazines such as National Geographic and Frontline.

(00:38:30) Interest in astronomy, aspirations of joining NASA, dislike for Maths.

(00:41:56) Volunteering at WWF, BNHS All India Camp [00:44:11-00:48:24 - Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details]

(00:47:02) Career path and experiences in wildlife conservation

(00:51:56) PhD project topic on forestry management at Wildlife Institute of India, and the process of getting selected for the PhD

Prachi Mehta shares the process of getting selected for her PhD research at the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) and goes on to recount her impressions of the institute. Mehta talks about her project on bird diversity and felling practices and the fieldwork she carried out in Bori Wildlife Sanctuary and Melghat Tiger Reserve. She also mentions other projects by other researchers. She touches upon her experiences as a woman at WII.

She shares her experiences and observations in forestry and wildlife conservation, highlighting the importance of understanding the vertical stratification of communities and the role of different feeders in the ecosystem. She discusses the events and people that influenced her thinking about issues around conservation, emphasizing the transition from being a researcher to thinking about conservation and the practical application of research outcomes.

She goes on to speak about how her marriage affected and informed her career decisions. She details the job opportunities post her PhD and talks about what led to her and Jayant Kulkarni setting up the first Enviro Search and then the NGO Wildlife Research and Conservation Society.

(00:00:04) Experiences and memories of applying and interviewing for PhD at Wildlife Institute of India [00:06:18-00:11:10 - Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details]

(00:11:12) Classes at WII, project on bird diversity and felling, reflection on fieldwork at Bori Wildlife Sanctuary and Melghat Tiger Reserve

(00:21:07) Discussions about how Mehta devised study design and funding for projects at WII, interaction with AJT Johnsingh, and his involvement in the project

(00:25:36) Personal interest in ecology research, conservation, and forestry practices

(00:30:14) Reflections on PhD work at WII

(00:32:43) Meeting Jayant Kulkarni, birdwatching at Rajaji National Park, and Kulkarni's influence on Mehta regarding conservation

[00:34:35-00:36:17 - Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details]

[00:37:56-00:38:59 - Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details]

(00:40:08) Career choices after PhD, marriage, and job opportunities

(00:45:07) Starting a consulting firm focused on environmental issues

(00:50:16) Setting up Mehta and Kulkarni's consultancy called Enviro Search, conservation efforts and setting up the nonprofit organization Wildlife Research and Conservation Society

Prachi Mehta speaks about her work through her environmental consultancy Enviro Search and her NGO Wildlife Research and Conservation Society (WRCS) between 2007 and 2011. She speaks about the projects on the human-elephant conflict in North East, Uttara Kannada, and Maharashtra and collaborations on those projects with other organisations, government bodies, and local communities such as farmers and villagers. She speaks about the elephant conservation project in Kodagu and faced challenges such as encroachment, poaching, and lack of effective solutions from the government and farmers.

Mehta speaks about beginning her research on the Forest Owlet in 2005, detailing her first project on the species and new research techniques and methodologies she needed to learn such as color banding the birds and radio telemetry. She learned such techniques from owl researchers in the USA and in India from colleagues who worked with birds. She speaks about her work on the Forest Owlet in Melghat forest reserve, the research outcomes of that project, and the funding she procured from Raptor Research and Conservation Fun (RRCF) and The Peregrine Fund.

(00:00:03) Projects under Enviro Search and WRCS, human-elephant conflict in Kodagu in Karnataka

(00:05:12) Elephant conservation work at WRCS in Maharashtra and Uttara Kannada

[Archivist's note: Mehta refers to working in North Kanara. North Kanara (also alternatively written as Canara) is, today, officially called Uttara Kannada.]

(00:11:31) NGOs working on elephant conservation efforts in India, detail Mehta and WRCS's work on elephant research and conservation in Kodagu

(00:19:41) Local attitudes and government approaches to protecting elephants

(00:25:29) Mehta's research focus on Forest Owlets, the rediscovery of Forest Owlets, research methodology to study the Forest Owlet

(00:29:51) Study of Forest Owlet in Melghat reserve project proposal, a trip to the USA, learning and developing owl research techniques and methodology

(00:37:28) Color banding and radio telemetry Forest Owlets; population dynamics, morphology characteristic studies, and conservation of Forest Owlet

(00:46:06) Challenges faced while conducting radio telemetry on Forest Owlets

[00:49:10-00:50:22 - Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details]

(00:52:49) Reflecting on the relationship with RRCF

Prachi Mehta speaks about her involvement in the conservation of the Forest Owlet, highlighting the threats to their population and habitat loss; she highlights agriculture, timber logging, and tourism. She speaks about her owl conservation efforts by working with local communities and conducting capacity-building workshops with forest officials. She discusses the development of her research techniques and methodologies and the phases of her research and conservation work on the Forest Owlet. Mehta emphasizes the need for sustained monitoring and research to identify the root causes of population decline and develop effective conservation measures. She speaks of the collaboration between researchers and forest departments, as well as the challenges faced in conducting scientific research in forestry. Finally, she shares her personal experiences in conservation work, highlighting the importance of aligning personal values with professional choices.

(00:00:03) Forest Owlet conservation work in India, starting with research interest and leading to direct involvement in conservation efforts due to habitat loss

(00:04:03) Bird population monitoring and conservation in a forest area concerning felling and agriculture

(00:09:45) Conservation efforts in Khandwa, focussing on preventing tree felling and capacity building with forest officials

(00:14:36) Protecting endangered species in forest areas and owl trade hotspots for black magic

(00:20:08) Wildlife conservation and tourism in India.

(00:24:54) Conservation efforts for endangered owl species

(00:29:40) Bird tagging for habitat research

(00:37:30) How researchers can engage forest departments for conservation management

(00:39:56) Challenges researchers in engaging forest departments, speaking about experiences in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra

(00:46:36) Building trust between researchers and forest department officials for effective conservation efforts

(00:53:06) Research needs for conservation efforts including population monitoring and habitat protection

[00:53:50-00:54:16 - Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details]

(00:57:49) Conservation efforts for owls in India, including field implementations such nest boxes and village engagement

(01:03:43) Collaboration with and outreach to local stakeholders for the conservation of endangered species

(01:09:47) Personal experiences and perspectives on forest conservation and the role of officers in the field

(01:12:51) Scientific publications, fundraising challenges, and conservation efforts

(01:19:35) The importance of science in conservation, debunking myths, and using technology to improve breeding success

(01:27:30) Career advice to a younger generation of aspiring ecologists and conservationists and suggestions on volunteering with NGOs and forest departments

[01:30:29-01:32:20 - Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details]

(01:33:44) Personal reflections on conservation efforts in a forest, including telemetry and monitoring work

(01:39:39) Personal reflections on teamwork, leadership, and wildlife conservation

(01:42:39) Solo travel experiences in forests

Pradip Krishen recalls his early years growing up outside India and in New Delhi. He talks about his hobbies, his parents and siblings and their influence on him.

He talks about his academic journey, starting with school in Nairobi, New Delhi, and Ajmer, then studying history at St. Stephen's College, and later at the University of Oxford, where he developed an interest in cinema.

When he returned to Delhi, he took up a job as a lecturer. He sheds light on how his interest in filmmaking developed and led him to change tracks and make the film Massey Saab. He talks about working on television projects like Bargad and films such as In Which Annie Gives It Those Ones and Electric Moon.

He concludes by talking about the challenges he faced due to which he ultimately stepped away from filmmaking.

(00:00:53) Early life and family background

(00:03:31) Interest in nature and education

(00:08:12) Hobbies, family and their influence on Krishen

[00:13:55-00:14:01- Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details.]

[00:14:10-00:14:15- Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details.]

(00:20:20) Schooling, undergraduate and postgraduate years

(00:28:01) Civil services and early career

(00:34:48) Transition to filmmaking and early challenges

(00:49:08) The Emergency

(00:52:26) Getting into St. Stephen's College and University of Oxford

(00:53:43) French film Krishen was associated with

(00:54:25) First independent documentary and directing Massey Sahib

(01:04:14) Further television and film projects and professional challenges

[01:07:09-01:07:10- Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details.]

Pradip Krishen shares his journey from filmmaking to ecological restoration, beginning with his discovery of Pachmarhi in the early 1980s while shooting his debut film. He says he fell in love with the town's jungles, built a home there, and developed a deep interest in tree identification. With a friend, he explored Pachmarhi's forests and later collaborated with the Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) on a conservation-focussed development plan. Unfortunately, though, the plan faced local opposition.

Krishen talks about his curiosity about trees extending to Delhi, leading to his well-known book Trees of Delhi: A Field Guide (2006). His passion for native flora took him to various regions, advising on planting projects in the lower Himalayas and Nagaur, Rajasthan.

In Jodhpur, he led the Rao Jodha Desert Rock Park project, where his team successfully restored native desert vegetation by removing invasive Prosopis juliflora. The project, Krishen shares, demanded ecological experimentation, soil analysis, and adaptive strategies to replicate natural desert conditions. Local communities and traditional miners were involved and it was ensured that the park reflected the region's biodiversity. Krishen also highlights the monitoring and adapting efforts along the way. (00:00:26) Exploring Pachmarhi and its unique character, building a home and exploring the jungle

(00:07:58) Redesigning the Bison Lodge Museum

(00:09:57) Challenges in implementing a conservation plan for Pachmarhi

[00:15:34-00:16:09- Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details.]

(00:20:54) Legal challenges with the house in the village of Bari Aam

(00:27:41) Discovering the flora of Delhi

(00:38:16) Publishing Trees of Delhi: A Field Guide

(00:46:27) Planting and gardening projects

[00:48:09-00:48:24- Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details.]

(00:57:36) The Rao Jodha Desert Park Project

(01:12:02) Monitoring and adapting the Project

Pradeep Krishen shares insights into his role in creating the Visitor Centre at Rao Jodha Desert Rock Park, Jodhpur and other ecological restoration projects. The Visitor Centre, inaugurated in 2012, involved transforming a historic gateway and focusing on contextual designs using local sandstone and desert landscapes. Despite initial challenges, such as recruiting motivated docents, Krishen highlights successes in engaging visitors with exhibits, folk concerts, and special features like raised beds for desert plants.

He reflects on the park's ability to attract special interest groups, generate revenue through a nursery project, and break even during the pandemic, though overall footfall remained low. Krishen also discusses the successful Kishan Bagh Sand Dune Park in Jaipur, which combines engaging design with native plant conservation to attract significant visitorship.

Looking ahead, Krishen says, he plans to focus on writing and educational materials, while emphasising the need for committed stakeholders and community involvement to sustain ecological restoration efforts.

(00:00:35) Creating the Visitor Centre in Rao Jodha Desert Rock Park, developing special exhibits and engaging visitors

(00:13:25) Visitors to the Desert Rock Park

(00:22:24) Economic costs of managing the Park

(00:24:58) Community involvement and future plans

(00:29:46) Background to how the Kishan Bagh project came about

(00:43:06) Challenges in managing the Kishan Bagh project

(00:51:14) "Failed" ecological restoration projects and future plans

(00:57:16) Current projects

Pradeep Krishen discusses his journey in documenting central India's jungle trees, transitioning from his book Trees of Delhi: A Field Guide to Jungle Trees of Central India: A Field Guide for Tree Spotters. He details his extensive field trips and challenges in exploring vast, ecologically diverse landscapes, noting the impact of colonial forestry practices. He also reflects on improving his photographic and documentation techniques.

He highlights the limited impact of his work on government agencies despite increased public awareness, tree walks inspired by his books, and the success of Trees of Delhi. He shares insights into his involvement in the Central Vista redevelopment project, expressing satisfaction with some contributions but noting resistance to others.

Krishen critiques government policies and restoration efforts, emphasising the importance of native species and independent work. He reflects on personal influences, including his family and professional privileges, while maintaining hope for meaningful restoration and conservation practices.

(00:00:35) Exploring Central India's jungle trees and discoveries during research

(00:08:08) Photographic skills and writing Jungle Trees of Central India: A Field Guide for Tree Spotters

(00:12:00) Other writing projects

(00:15:15) Central Ridge and trees in Delhi

(00:17:36) Impact of Krishen's work on official agencies and departments

(00:26:02) Change in people's attitudes towards trees and the environment and reflections on the impact of Trees of Delhi: A Field Guide

(00:30:00) Role in Central Vista Redevelopment Project

(00:39:44) Krishen's daughters and personal reflections

(00:47:01) Community of restoration practitioners in India and government policy and scepticism

(00:55:30) Religion and cultural beliefs, accomplishment Krishen is most proud of and his regrets

Starting with his individual efforts in Rajasthan, Krishen highlights India's nascent restoration field, challenges with small habitats, lack of indigenous collaboration, and scepticism toward government restoration claims. He critiques the Forest Department's inadequate knowledge of native species, resistance to external collaboration, and flawed restoration efforts, including misguided projects like those being undertaken in Delhi's Central Ridge.

Reflecting on systemic challenges, Krishen emphasises the need for better forestry training, native species conservation, and adaptive restoration strategies informed by local conditions. He laments the policy-practice disconnect, especially the prioritisation of industry over conservation.

Krishen envisions a future where political decisions prioritise long-term environmental concerns, stressing the need for successful large-scale restoration models to drive meaningful change.

(00:00:27) Early restoration efforts and challenges

(00:03:07) Challenges in restoration and government involvement

(00:05:32) Government restoration claims and Forest Department challenges

[(00:05:59-00:06:03): Archivist's note: the correct figure is 26 million hectares of degraded land]

(00:09:47) Case Study: Central Ridge restoration in Delhi

(00:13:33) Government and lack of commitment to conservation

(00:15:52) Major successes and failures in conservation

(00:22:19) Some personal experiences with forest officers and the Forest Department

(00:25:59) Principles and strategies in restoration work

(00:30:30) Concern about degradation in hills, illegal mining, Roee, and future plans

(00:36:42) Systemic challenges and future of conservation

(00:38:48) Inspiration and hope for conservation and its future in India

Ashish Kothari discusses his 50-year journey in Indian conservation, emphasizing the need to bridge wildlife conservation with human rights and community-led initiatives. He recalls the formation of Kalpavriksh in 1979, focusing on community-based conservation and education, and reflects on the limitations of the horizon of the organization's vision.

He reflects on certain major achievements of nationwide conservation initiatives and highlights the Forest Rights Act and the Snow Leopard project. He also highlights the challenges to conservation action in India, underscoring the top-down approach of formal wildlife conservation and the need for economic and political model shifts.

Ashish discusses the importance of gender and caste dimensions in conservation and environmental justice. He acknowledges the persistence of gender inequalities within conservation organizations and the need for more women in leadership positions.

Kothari envisions a future where all of India becomes a conservation site, emphasizing community governance, decentralized development, and global collaboration. He highlights the role of individual actions in protecting species and landscapes and the need for a global phenomenon of change. He also discusses the challenges the current education system poses in promoting individualism and underscores the need for a shift toward community-based learning.

(00:00:37) Personal motivations and objectives towards conservation, bridging the gap between wildlife conservation and human rights, involvement in student demonstrations and interventions in Delhi

(00:07:35) Founding of Kalpavriksh, early aims and actions, reflections on pathways, site-specific and participatory conservation education

(00:16:46) Limitations of the national wildlife conservation policy of India, recent successes of wildlife conservation policy in India

(00:21:03) Intersections between casteism and environmental conservation in India, gender dynamics in conservation in India, social and gender inequalities in conservation

(00:29:23) Economic and political challenges in conservation action in India, formulation of National Biodiversity Action Plan, collating action plans from across India

(00:37:22) Final report of the National Biodiversity Action Plan committee, collapse of the draft action plan, balancing modern scientific models and community knowledge systems, inconsistencies in implementation

(00:45:03) Need for focusing on ecologically sensitive species and community conversed areas, co-governance models and decentralization, vision for global networks of local institutions and communities for conservation, non-state based models

(00:54:15) Challenges towards conservation action, alternative education systems, significance of multilingual education

(01:04:09) Concerns around wildlife conservation in India, long-term conservation models, regional and global cooperation for conservation action

Shomona Khanna speaks about her role as a legal professional with a significant role in Indian conservation and justice movements. She shares that her early inspiration came from the Bhopal gas tragedy judgment, leading her to become involved with organisations like People's Union for Democratic Rights and the People's Environment Group in the University of Delhi.

She discusses her legal education, which marked a shift from her earlier studies in economics. While pursuing her law degree, she worked as a correspondent for Lawyers' Collective, covering social justice issues.

Talking about her professional journey, Khanna speaks about working with Justice S. Muralidhar on issues like custodial violence and tribal rights, and gaining trial court experience. In Himachal Pradesh, she focussed on forest and resource management. She delves into detail regarding her involvement in tracking and monitoring the Godavarman case and how her subsequent advocacy for forest rights cemented her focus on tribal communities' legal struggles.

She then discusses the Supreme Court and diversion of protected areas. She talks about her contributions to the development of forest rights in the country, battling opposition from campaigns opposing the Forest Rights Act (FRA), and the formation of a team of young lawyers to support it.

Khanna reflects on her time as Legal Advisor to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (2013–2017), describing it as a valuable learning experience that deepened her understanding of how laws impact forest-dwelling communities on the ground. Next, she discusses the founding of the Legal Resource Centre, a collective dedicated to empowering adivasis, forest-dependent communities and legal professionals. She shares that the Centre undertakes legal research and academic writing, informs movements and lawyers, offers legal training to activists and district court lawyers, and is involved with curriculum development.

She critically examines the development and implementation of wildlife and forest legislation, highlighting how bureaucratic systems—particularly forest departments—often operate in ways that exclude communities and undermine local self-governance models like Van Panchayats. She acknowledges some successes of the Forest Rights Act.

Khanna highlights that conservation organisations need to recognise the role of people in preserving forests and stresses the need to make constitutional and legal knowledge accessible in local languages. She expresses concern about recent legal amendments and the redrawing of protected areas, warning against unscientific, exclusionary conservation practices. She concludes by calling for local communities, young people, and those in representative politics to challenge unscientific, obscure and outdated ideas and expresses hope about the work being done by the Legal Resource Centre in this regard.

(00:00:00) Introduction

(00:00:24) Early exposure to environmental and social injustice

(00:09:31) Transition to law and working for the Lawyers' Collective magazine

(00:13:43) Time spent with People's Union for Democratic Rights and conversations in class

(00:16:47) Professional decisions, working under Justice S. Muralidhar and as a trial court lawyer

(00:21:15) Relocating to Palampur and working there for four years

(00:24:18) Moving back to Delhi and uncovering legal misrepresentations affecting forest dwellers

(00:31:10) Deciding to focus on legal issues such as forest and resource management, the Godavarman case and issues with forest bureaucracy and the legal system

[00:40:00-00:40:37] audio connection lost

(00:45:59) Supreme Court and diversion of protected areas and stopping the monitoring of the Godavarman case

(00:53:27) Contribution to and reflections on forest rights

[01:01:12 - 01:10:31 – Restricted access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in.]

(01:13:19) Being an advisor to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (2013 to 2017) and the learning experience it provided

(01:20:35) Reflections and an anecdote

(01:26:39) Setting up Legal Resource Centre to provide legal services to adivasis and forest dwelling communities

(01:38:28) Assessing wildlife and forest acts, their implementation, van panchayats and forest bureaucracy

(01:51:21) Successes pertaining to the Forest Rights Act

(01:54:04) Need for conservation organisations to acknowledge people and the importance of the Constitution in local languages

(02:02:35) Worry about recent amendments, demarcation of protected areas and hope for the piercing through of unscientific ideas

(02:06:24) Winding up the session

Zai Whitaker speaks about her childhood as a time rooted in nature, family, and creativity. She touches on themes of growing up in open, outdoor spaces that encouraged curiosity and play, contrasting this with the more structured demands of schooling. She reflects on how creativity and conservation coexisted in her household, with her parents modelling a life dedicated to writing, activism, and environmental work. Family and her parents' friends and acquaintances, such as those from conservation and literary circles, created a nurturing environment.

Whitaker shares that she was encouraged to write from a young age. She also reflects on the vital role of the house-help, remembering them with deep affection and as an extension of the family. She shares a few anecdotes about her encounters with prominent figures in conservation, including her mother's uncle, Sálim Ali.

(00:00:00) Introduction

(00:00:30) Childhood and family

(00:09:32) Whitaker's father, reading and school

(00:15:25) Other hobbies, interests and travel as a child

(00:22:50) Subjects in school and early writing experiences

(00:27:21) Interaction with parents' friends and acquaintances

(00:31:33) Parents' professions and thoughts about what to do when older

(00:33:05) Importance of cook-driver and maid in their lives and time in Kihim

(00:36:11) Sálim "Mamu"

(00:38:56) Winding up the session

Zai Whitaker speaks about her formative experiences in conservation from the late 1960s onwards. She recalls early exposure through WWF in Switzerland, which gave her a glimpse into global conservation work. Back in India, she contributed to WWF's initiatives with Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS), helping organise exhibitions and awareness campaigns, particularly for young people.

She situates the 1970s as a dynamic period when international scientists collaborated in Indian wildlife studies, while also noting the shift toward building local expertise. She shares personal anecdotes, such as her sister's role in the Silent Valley campaign, illustrating how closely her family was tied to national conservation milestones.

Marriage to Romulus Whitaker drew her into reptile conservation in Tamil Nadu. Through the Guindy Snake Park and Madras Crocodile Bank Trust and Centre for Herpetology, she worked on education, myth-busting, and hands-on projects like crocodile hatching. She reflects on balancing conservation with community livelihoods, particularly through venom extraction with Irulas. Whitaker talks about her academic choices and how she started teaching in Kodaikanal. Writing and publishing remained lasting outlets for her commitment, enabling her to connect education, conservation, and public engagement.

(00:00:00) Introduction

(00:00:30) Stint in Switzerland, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)-India's beginnings and international conservationists

(00:08:38) Involvement of Whitaker and her sister in their father's work and marrying Romulus Whitaker

(00:12:56) Launch of Project Tiger, Newsletter for Birdwatchers and birdwatching

(00:17:43) Snake skin trade, working with Irulas and stint in Switzerland

(00:22:35) Guindy Snake Park and work related to crocodiles

(00:27:05) Academic choices and time in Kodaikanal

[00:29:45 - 00:31:09 – Restricted access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in]

(00:34:03) Starting the venom production centre, Madras Crocodile Bank Trust and Centre for Herpetology and Hamadryad

(00:37:15) Snakes of India: The Field Guide and books written with Romulus Whitaker

(00:39:06) Undergraduate and post graduate studies

(00:39:40) Winding up the session

Zai Whitaker recalls her early role in the Silent Valley campaign, where her family's collective activism, writing, and influence helped bring conservation into national focus.

In the 1990s, her focus shifted towards education, balancing the practical needs of raising her children with a commitment to teaching and later leading schools. Even in this phase, her connection to conservation endured, both through her son Nikhil's work and her continued involvement in projects.

Her return to the Madras Crocodile Bank Trust and Centre for Herpetology as managing trustee marked a renewal of hands-on conservation work, especially in community-based initiatives like the Irula Tribal Women's Welfare Society, where she stressed empowerment and grassroots leadership.

Whitaker also emphasises writing as an extension of her activism, using stories to engage with themes of ecology and marginalised communities. She goes on to speak about her current pursuits and desires regarding reading and education, and also talks about her recent book projects. She shares accomplishments she is proud of along with a personal regret.

(00:00:00) Introduction

(00:00:30) Involvement in the Silent Valley Movement

(00:03:39) Various roles at different schools and the Madras Crocodile Bank Trust and family

(00:10:03) Irula Tribal Women's Welfare Society

(00:19:20) Work in the Andamans and the Andaman Nicobar Environment Team (ANET)

(00:22:56) Reflections on writing over the years

(00:34:25) Current pursuits and desires regarding reading and education

(00:37:15) Recent book projects

(00:40:01) Achievements/accomplishments and regrets

(00:41:58) Winding up the session

Zai Whitaker reflects on India's conservation history, highlighting the 1970s as a turning point, when the culture of hunting gave way to preservation, with efforts like WWF India and partnerships with international scientists shaping early conservation. At the same time, she says, grassroots initiatives such as birdwatching groups, newsletters, and community engagement, helped build a national awareness that influenced future conservation-minded individuals and groups.

Whitaker also speaks about persistent challenges of rapid population growth, poor regulation of tourism, and the failure of environmental impact assessments, often undermined by politics. According to her, conservation is not just ecologically beneficial but economically beneficial as well, with reptiles, especially snakes, playing a vital role in agriculture and public health.

Looking ahead, she emphasises the need to educate policymakers and communities, integrate indigenous knowledge with science, and strengthen grassroots empowerment. While acknowledging human-wildlife conflict and shrinking habitats, she sees hope in the persistence of conservation groups and the potential of community-led models to shape India's future.

(00:00:00) Introduction

(00:00:30) Reflections on successes in India's conservation journey

(00:06:56) Failures: Challenges of population growth and tourism and environmental impact assessments

(00:10:48) Reptile conservation

(00:13:12) The need to educate politicians and Whitaker's vision for wildlife conservation

(00:16:35) The need to hang on to small pockets of hope

(00:18:37) Balancing knowledge systems in conservation

(00:21:21) Reptile conservation in the future

(00:24:32) Navigating future conservation challenges

(00:29:50) Role of indigenous communities and expanding collaborations to enhance conservation outcomes

(00:33:03) Winding up the session